I suspect we’ll see other state gay rights groups follow NJ’s lead, which is based on, whether intentionally or not, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Give campaign that . . .  our Netroots allies, launched in November. And perhaps it’s time that national gay rights group did the same, rather than simply serving as an appendage of the Democratic party instead of serving their own community.

(Emphasis added.)

As I’ve written previously, I believe the boycott that John has spearheaded has helped spur the Administration to move forward on DADT.   That said, I’m  delighted to see John recognize yet again what we and other gay conservatives have been saying for many years about HRC and their allied groups.  They act more like the gay auxiliaries of the Democratic Party than independent groups advocating for gay rights.

To be sure, while we offer similar criticisms, we would likely seek different solutions.  We agree on repealing DADT, but part company on other issues.  All that said, I admire anyone who stands for their principles without engaging in name-calling and misrepresentation (or any other form of mean-spirited attack).  From all that I have read on this issue, John, the folks at Queerty and Pam Spaulding have focused on their opposition to Democratic Party inaction on issues of concern to them.

So, kudos to them for standing tall for their beliefs.  And special thanks to John for giving me a great title for a post.

(H/t:  Instapundit.)

This is not to say that I find either an ideal candidate.  I have concerns about both.  It’s just that they would both be better than the likely Democratic candidate former Governor Jerry Moonbeam Medfly Brown.  Given the red ink our state faces, we can’t afford to have Brown back in the Governor’s chair.

I wanted to follow the gubernatorial campaign to see which Republican could better take on an out-of-control state legislature all but controlled by the public employee unions.  From their record in the private sector, it’s clear the Republicans knows how to meet a payroll and how to hold the line on expenses.

I always thought I’d just wait until a few days before the primary and vote for whoever was polling better against Moonbeam Brown.  But, some of Poizner’s action in recent days have caused me to question his strength of character.  When Mike Murphy, a political consultant working for Whitman, tried to persuade Poizner to withdraw from the race (he trails Whitman by as much as 30 points in polls), the Golden State Insurance Commissioner announced he’d asked law enforcement to “investigate improper conduct” that “threatens the integrity of the electoral process.”

Improper conduct to do what rivals regularly do in contested primaries?

Not the way to respond to such an offer.  Doesn’t really show much strength or confidence  your campaign.  A more secure candidate would have brushed the offer off, saying once the campaign heated up, he’d surge ahead.  A candidate who doesn’t have the fortitude to stand up to an offer from a rival Republican likely wouldn’t have the fortitude to stand up to a Democratic legislators used to pushing the Governor around.

His behavior certainly makes me more enthusiastic about Mrs. Whitman.  But, I’m not yet sold.  She’s been saying all the right things on taxes and spending, but I want to hear her say that she believes the state’s domestic partnership program is “settled” law.  

Should she do that, she’d likely have my vote in the primary–and maybe even this blog’s endorsement.

And even if her answers aren’t as I’d like them on all issues, should she win the nomination, I’ll be voting for her.  There are few things that would be worse for the Golden State that four more years of Jerry Brown as Governor.

To see that it is possible for gay people to serve openly while retaining military morale and unit cohesion, one only look at the examples of the nations which allow gays to serve openly in the military, including one nation which faces threats to its survival on an almost daily basis and has thus developed one of the world’s most effective armed services.  I’m speaking of course of Israel.

Thus, I was pleased to learn this week that this spring the Palm Center, a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara whose work of late has focused on gays in the military, will will be including officials of the Israel Defense Forces (as well as representatives of other NATO militaries) in a “Washington, D.C. summit of officials and experts from military forces that allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly“.

Dr. Aaron Belkin, Director of the Palm Center, cited three questions raised about “twenty-five foreign forces that allow open gay service:”

Did the decision to allow open gay service undermine military readiness?  How was implementation managed?  To what extent can lessons from abroad help U.S. officials plan for an inclusive policy?

This conference can only help ease doubts among those who believe allowing gays to serve openly in the military is merely a social experiment or perhaps done to please an interest group without regard for the welfare of our armed forces.

Ken Adelman who served as Ambassador and Arms Control Director in the Reagan Administration agrees:

The British, Australian, and Israeli militaries all now have solid experience with open gays in uniform. Their forces don’t suffer in performance; the gay service members there don’t seem to upset the straight members much. And U.S. forces, though in far greater numbers, don’t differ culturally or functionally too much from their colleagues in these militaries.

Like many intellectually-inclined individuals born in the Midwest, I chose to attend college in New England and settle in cities outside my native region, first living in the Washington, D.C.-metropolitan area and now in Los Angeles.  And while many of my peers who made similar journeys share my politics, most do not.  It seems that when they pull up stakes, they lose all allegiance to their place of birth–and the people who live there.

They behave as if because they’re so much smarter than the folks they left behind, they know better how to run their lives than they do.  They heap scorn on those who don’t know the difference between Hegel and Heidegger and can’t name a single German film director from the 1920s or a French one from the 1960s.  In fact, most of the folk left behind probably couldn’t name more than one or two American directors for the 200os.

We conservatives, most of us at least, are a tad more humble.  While we appreciate the company of those with whom we can share our intellectual/cultural pursuits, we recognize that our supposed smarts don’t give us the qualifications to run the lives of our youthful companions or to question their world view.  Sometimes, we’re even aware that these folks have more practical intelligence than we do; we even turn to them for advice on matters of running our households and managing our money.

Yet, many of our left-wing counterparts just can’t accept that those in the hinterlands just don’t trust the judgments of their betters.  How, they exclaim, could anyone find the Blind Side entertaining or, in generations past, couldn’t get enough of John Wayne movies?  Just take a gander at Jacob Weisberg’s latest lament:  ”what may be the biggest culprit in our current predicament: the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.“

He then goes on to tell us just what it is that makes the American people so ignorant and incoherent:  ”We want Washington and the states to fix all of our problems now. At the same time, we want government to shrink, spend less, and reduce our taxes.”  Guess he missed the latest Gallup poll.  The American people don’t want the the government to solve our problems, well, most of us don’t and I would dare say the better part of the 38 percent who do lives in regions near Mr. Weisberg and, well, myself.

But, I guess he just can’t let go of his prejudices.

In the past few days, I have read two columns taking on people like Mr. Weisberg.  In The Great Peasant Revolt of 2010, Charles Krathammer observes that Democrats understand the results in Massachusetts

. . . through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly. . . .  Liberals [believe that they] act in the public interest, while conservatives think only of power, elections, self-aggrandizement and self-interest.

What was “dissent” when a Republican was in office becomes “malice” now that a Democrat leads the nation.

In a more exhaustive piece on liberal condescension (in the same left-leaning daily!), Gerard Alexander contends such condescension is “part of a liberal tradition“

. . . that for generations has impoverished American debates over the economy, society and the functions of government — and threatens to do so again today, when dialogue would be more valuable than ever.

Liberals have dismissed conservative thinking for decades, a tendency encapsulated by Lionel Trilling’s 1950 remark that conservatives do not “express themselves in ideas but only in action or in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.” During the 1950s and ’60s, liberals trivialized the nascent conservative movement. Prominent studies and journalistic accounts of right-wing politics at the time stressed paranoia, intolerance and insecurity, rendering conservative thought more a psychiatric disorder than a rival. In 1962, Richard Hofstadter referred to “the Manichaean style of thought, the apocalyptic tendencies, the love of mystification, the intolerance of compromise that are observable in the right-wing mind.”

This sense of liberal intellectual superiority dropped off during the economic woes of the 1970s and the Reagan boom of the 1980s. (Jimmy Carter’s presidency, buffeted by economic and national security challenges, generated perhaps the clearest episode of liberal self-doubt.) But these days, liberal confidence and its companion disdain for conservative thinking are back with a vengeance, finding energetic expression in politicians’ speeches, top-selling books, historical works and the blogosphere. This attitude comes in the form of four major narratives about who conservatives are and how they think and function.

Over the Washington Examiner, David Freddoso, who like me, believes “entire piece is very much worth reading” offers a succinct summary of those four narratives.

In the end, I think the difference between intellectual conservatives are our counterparts on the left is this: when we recognize our preference for ideas over action, for the life of the mind over that of the body, we recognize that we are different from our less intellectual fellows.  Our liberal peers, however, believe they are better than the associates of their youth.

We appreciate those differences; many liberals deride them.  And they’re the ones who make such a fuss over diversity.

This is not the time for political opportunism,. . . .  Out of respect for Congressman Murtha’s family and his decades of service to our country, Republicans should put their partisanship aside and allow Mr. Murtha’s family, friends, and constituents time to celebrate his life and mourn his passing.

First of all, she’s right.  We should put aside partisanship.  But, why did she feel the need to say that, instead of focusing on the life she believes people should celebrate.  She’s lecturing Republicans on how to behave, assuming we’ll be dancing on this man’s grave.  She’s on this guy’s side and should focus on his accomplishments.  Let his opponents note their political differences, provided they do so in a manner appropriate at the time of a man’s passing.

Now, contrast her revealing statement with that of a man who had been running against the Pennsylvania Democrat:

Responding to the sudden and unfortunate announcement of the death of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA-12th), GOP challenger William Russell has asked all citizens, Republicans, Democrats and Independents to come together and pray for Joyce and the Murtha family as they deal with the tragic loss of husband, father and grandfather. “While Mr. Murtha and I were political combatants in every sense, our family and campaign team asks you to keep the Murtha family in your thoughts and prayers,” said Russell. “Regardless of your political position, you always knew Jack had an immense love and loyalty to his family and the residents of the 12th Congressional District.

The Russell campaign is immediately initiating a moratorium on all political media activity for the next five days in respect of the passing of John Murtha. The campaign will also remove all political references to Mr. Murtha on the Russellbrigade.com website immediately.

Yeah, some on the right have used the occasion of Murtha’s passing to criticize the man.  But, Ms. Crider would have done herself a service as well as that of the man she chose to honor by focusing on his accomplishments and extending condolences to his family.

Simply put, this is not the time to lecture your opponents on how to act.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  Alex in Denver build on my point:

Jen Crider’s statement is transparent. It isn’t about reminding anyone to maintain a sense of decorum at the passing of a legislator, it was about preemptively claiming the moral high road. Whenever someone lectures you about something you have not done, it is to do three things 1) paint you as the kind of person who, given the chance, WOULD do such a thing, 2) conversely paint themselves as the kind of person who would NEVER do such a thing, and 3) to claim credit for your subsequent good behavior.

So obsessed are they with this good woman that she only need open her mouth for them to criticize her.  Or write something innocuous on her palm.  They practically wet themselves trying to engage in a speculative divination.  And trying to deride her intelligence when she, as many orators do, scribbled notes to herself to remind her of issues she wanted to address, they neglected to pay much attention to what she actually did say.

“The far left,” Jim Hoft opined, “The far left absolutely freaked over this non-issue rather than focus on her brilliant speech“.  They prefer to treat her as a circus sideshow that a woman with accomplishments and ideas.

At least, the mainstream media did take note of the speech and so helped elevate the former Governor of the Last Frontier.  Indeed, it often seems she gets as much attention as he.  And her supposed gaffes get more attention than his actual gaffes.

What does it say when “the losing candidate for Vice President [is] for all intents and purposes, treated as the political equal of the President of the United States“?  (Quote via Instapundit.)

He has, as law professor William A. Jacobson observes, “imposed the precondition that the negotiations start with the Democratic versions of health care legislation:”

White House aides quickly rejected the idea that Obama wants to start over after nearly a year of contentious legislative haggling among members of his party.

Officials said the president will come to the health-care summit armed with a merged version of the two bills that Democrats strong-armed through the two chambers with almost no GOP backing.

“This is not starting over,” one White House official said, who requested anonymity in order to discuss administration strategy. “Don’t make any mistake about that. We are coming with our plan. They can bring their plan.”

The problem is that right now, while there are a number of Republican ideas are on the table, there is no one Republican plan.  And unless Republican settle on a single plan, the White House will try to use these negotiations to try to cast aspersions on the GOP for not having such a plan.  If the White House comes with their plan (which is something it should have done last summer), they’re all be certain to make it the focus of negotiations.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  And indeed, if Republicans come well-prepared, it may be a good thing.  They can press on removing certain provisions particularly unpalatable to them (and the American people) that Democrats would be loath to remove.  And on inserting such things as tort reform that remain popular with the American people, but are anathema to Democrats.

They must not acquiesce to  a radical overhaul of our health care system.  It’s not good for the country and it’s not what the people want.  So, rather than try to work within Obama’s framework, Republicans, Tom Maguire believes “should stick to [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s message – rather than try to reform one-sixth of the US economy in three hours, Republicans should offer some simple first steps.“

That may make them appear to be the “Party of No” to the Democrats, but to the American people, it will make them look like the party of reasonable reform.

UPDATE:  Matthew Continetti offers an interesting suggestion:  GOP should show Obama the one-page health reform bill

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/one-page-health-bill-83814567.html#ixzz0ezIiUlZp

Instead of touching on his congressional record, I will remember him now by his military service: “he volunteered for combat” during the Vietnam War after having already served in the Marines in the early 1950s.  He gave more to this country before his 40th birthday than most of us give in our entire lives.

I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues. . . .  What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table… I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.

Let’s hope he means what he says and instead of using a a proposal reconciling the House and Senate bills which passed last year as the basis for discussion, he really solicits Republican viewpoints.  Perhaps because he’s wary of the president’s sincerity, House Republican leader John Boehner welcomed the discussion, but cautioned,

The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills and focus on the kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs and expand access.

Exactly.  If the president does just that, this move could really redound to his benefit.  He would show that like the Gipper, he’s teachable, able to make course corrections where necessary.

He’d also look good if Republicans are scattershot in their opposition, saying “No” for the sake of opposing the president instead of rejecting a proposal on its merits (or lack thereof).  That is, I believe, what Obama is banking on.  And it could work if congressional Republicans are (as Democrats believe them to be) too shrill in their opposition.

If, however, the GOP designates a few point persons, say, maybe Eric Cantor or Mike Pence from the House and Judd Gregg, Bob Corker or Scott Brown from the Senate, individuals able focus on a few specific ideas for reform (notably tort reform) and can clearly articulate why they oppose the statist solutions contained in the House and Senate bills, this initiative could backfire for the president.  Congressional Republicans could use this forum to show that GOP views correspond with those of the majority of the American people.

If the president holds too firm to the Democratic bills, he runs another risk, seeming too intransigent, hell-bent on passing health care reform for the sake of passing it, stubbornly making the case for a program the American people have long since rejected.

It’s a smart move on the president’s part, but it doesn’t guarantee him success.  Indeed, if Republicans come prepared, it could doom him to failure in this endeavor.

If this picture is not a photoshop, then Ann Althouse got it right. Sarah Palin is “laughing at how absurdly fascinated everyone is with her.“

One of our commenters mentioned it last night and I found the above picture over on Michelle Malkin’s website.  Loved her commentary.  After spending the weekend with her family, she finds out what’s got the blogosphere buzzing:

The wall-to-wall coverage leads with “exclusive” investigative reports from a HuffPo “independent journalist and foreign correspondent.”

Plus: Breaking updates on the “crib notes!”

Seriously?

What is it about Sarah Palin that gets her adversaries whipped into such a frenzy.  Given this latest froth on their mouths, maybe we should make a crime to say, “Sarah Palin,” in a crowded room full of liberals.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  BREAKING NEWS!!! It’s not a Photoshop.  Karen Schell provides the details!

Actually, in the Zimbio photo album titled “Sarah Palin Attends Campaign Event For Texas Governor Rick Perry” on February 7, 2010 you’ll see the”Hi Mom! Hand” in at least several pictures (Getty Images).

Not a photoshop 

Hi Mom! Hand – photos

Yup, looks like Sarah Palin had the last laugh.  What’ll she write next?

UP-UPDATE:  Now Yahoo! has come down with a severe case of PDS.  Logging on at 7:30 PM PST, their website leads with a piece wondering what was written on Sarah Palin’s hand!

Reviewer Ben Brantley said he had basically just phone in his part:

Playing a sadistic, murderous thug to Ms. Tomei’s beleaguered young blind woman, Mr. Tarantino seems menacing to nothing except possibly Mr. Knott’s script. Whether raising his voice in deranged fury or softly promising to commit unspeakable tortures, he registers at best as merely petulant, like a suburban teen-ager who has been denied the use of his father’s Lexus for the night.

He seemed the worst type of person, rude and arrogant, convinced he was the greatest there was in any endeavor he attempted.  When I moved to LA and started watching and discussing movies with a circle of Hollywood wannabes, one of my closest friends insisted I watch Pulp Fiction, certain that I would enjoy it.  He even offered to pay for the video rental if I didn’t like the flick.   So, I relented.  And had to agree it was a darn good movie.  Tarantino made brilliant use of his, shall we saw, skewed chronology, chopping sequences up and moving them around to keep us engaged.

Now, I certainly wouldn’t call it one of my favorite films.  I don’t think I’ll watch it again.  I do acknowledge that it keep me entertained and was brilliantly made.

I should have remembered that inexperience when Inglourious Basterds was still in theaters.  I didn’t watch, not because I had heard it was bad, but because Tarantino kept behaving badly.  Well, a friend loaned me her DVD; I finally got around to watching it Saturday night.  I reluctantly popped it in, feeling I “needed” to see it so I could talk about it.  I was just going to watch a few minutes while I ate my late-night snack.  I wanted to hate it because it didn’t seemed right that someone so rude could make a movie so good.

Well, I didn’t get my wish.  I watched it until I couldn’t keep my eyes open.

And there were some masterful performances.  Brad Pitt was entertaining with near perfect comic timing.  It took me a while to realize how good Christoph Waltz was because I hated his character so much, then I realized that the reason I hated him because he was doing his job.  It did not surprise me when I read that he received an Oscar nomination for this performance.  I do think that two of the women in the movie were shortchanged. Mélanie Laurent was good as Shosanna and I particularly liked Diane Kruger’s interpretation of a 1940s German film star.

Entertaining as I found this flick, it was, like Pulp Fiction quite disjointed.  Story-teller Tarantino ain’t.  It seemed more like a series of vignettes around a common theme than a story with any kind of  narrative structure.  I mean, the story didn’t emerge until well over half-way through the movie; the movie was more set-up than story.  All that said, it engaged me.  I didn’t have the urge to pick up my laptop and surf the web as I do when watching a dull DVD.

And a lot of it seemed like insider’s baseball, with frequent references to actors and directors of the period and on filmmaking.  And many scenes seemed familiar — as if I’d seen them before.  A friend once compared Tarantino’s films to a mix tape, scenes from other movies strung together in a manner the compiler, er, director finds works to fit his mood.

All the said, I realize I haven’t even touched upon the film’s theme — it’s about a group of Jews led by a Southern redneck (Pitt’s Lt. Aldo Raine) parachuted behind enemy lines to kill Nazis during World War II.  It’s a little bit too bloody for my taste, but, well, I gotta be honest here, itt held my interest.  (And don’t we all want to see dead Nazis being scalped?  Admit it, we do.)  It may not have been a story in the traditional sense, but it was entertaining.  And I guess maybe that was it’s purpose.

Now, I know very little about the judge, certainly not enough to call his overall impartiality into question–though the way he has conducted this trial certainly sets off some alarm bells.  It strikes me as odd that he has allowed the plaintiffs to bring in certain witnesses whose commentary on gay marriage would certainly be relevant were the issue debated in the legislature or presented to the people, but is entirely irrelevant to a court considering whether a popular provision in the state constitution violates the federal constitution.

All reports (at least those I have read), for example, show that Jerry Sanders is a fine Mayor of San Diego, but he is no legal scholar.  His remarks on gay marriage belong in a political campaign, not a court of law.  That Judge Walker allowed his testimony as well as other personal stories suggests poor judging.  But, many straight judges would also allow in such “witnesses.”

As a gay man who believes the Judge should have dismissed the case before it even came to trial, I know it’s not his sexuality that’s the issue, but his jurisprudence.*  All that said, should this one man rule to overturn the will of seven million, you can bet the proponent of the Proposition will make an issue of his sexuality.  Indeed, some already are.  Ed Whelan, offering some sound criticism of the judge’s questionable judgments, point outs:

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. . . .

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

Another conservative blogger is mocking him.  And frankly, I don’t blame him.  Touchy-feely is not the way to run a courtroom.

It’s too bad Judge Walker has shown such poor judgment in letting a parade of witnesses to make a case more appropriate to the public square and in his federal courtroom.  Had he exercised better judgment, no one would be making an issue of his sexuality.

Perhaps, he might consider the backlash that will ensue should he rule to overturn Prop 8.  Not only will that motivate opponents of gay marriage, but it will also raise the hopes of its advocates.  And they will likely experience the same disappointment they felt when voters overturned the California Supreme Court decision mandating state recognition of same-sex marriage when appellate courts overturn his decision on appeal.  (And the same disappointment when the state Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8.)

Instead of returning to the courthouse time after time after time, gay marriage advocates need focus on convincing the people of California (an other jurisdictions) of the merits of same-sex marriage so they can enact laws sure to survive constitutional and popular scrutiny.  But, as we’ve seen before that they’ve long been loath to do that.

——–

*Many judges holding a similarly liberal interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause would have done exactly the same thing he has done–even if they weren’t gay.

Perhaps if the president or anyone in his administration had ever run a business or been responsible for a payroll, there would be more understanding about the negative impact Obama’s policies (including his mandate- and fine-filled health-care bill) have on those we must rely on to fuel the economic recovery. Unfortunately, this administration is long on academic types and government bureaucrats and short on entrepreneurs. We could use a few about now.

Closer inspection of a photo of Sarah Palin, during a speech in which she mocked President Obama for his use of a teleprompter, reveals several notes written on her left hand. The words “Energy”, “Tax” and “Lift American Spirits” are clearly visible. There’s also what appears to read as “Budget cuts” with the word Budget crossed out.

Oh no! She wrote notes on her hand. My, my, my, my, my, my, my. He files this under “Hypocrisy.”  Huh?  Huh?

So, what’s wrong with that?  She was just reminding herself of the issues she wanted to address.  She doesn’t even have talking points.  And lefties compare this to Obama using a Teleprompter.  I mean, on said device, said Democrat gets the full text of his speeches.  ”The notes,” as the folks on Founding Bloggers put it, “appear to be very innocuous.”  Very innocuous.

These aren’t the answers to questions.  They’re not even questions.  And such scribbling is much less newsworthy than. say, the Commander in Chief mispronouncing corpsman.

Memo to Sarah Palin:  given the obsession of the left in using anything and everything against you, I suggest next time you write, “there’s no E in P-O-T-A-T-O,” on your hand.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse offers:

Isn’t it funny how she caught our attention with her scrawled-on hand? I picture her — hanging out with Todd today — laughing at how absurdly fascinated everyone is with her.

I bet this diva’s right. Just read the whole thing!

UPDATE:  The Great IPCC Meltdown Continues

Guess Fred Barnes was right about Obama’s “misreading of the 2008 election“:

He and Democratic liberals interpreted it as a mandate for an era of liberal lawmaking and governance in a newly minted center-left America. And they set out to create that era with sweeping initiatives on health care, energy and the environment, and the economy.

Problem is is that these government initiatives don’t find much favor with the American people.  While Gallup found that “about a quarter of Americans felt there was too little government regulation of business and industry“, the ”majority of Americans believed that there was either too much regulation, or about the right amount.”  Indeed, a full 50%, exactly half, thought government should “become less involved in regulating business.”

More Americans unemployed for longer (8 months vs. 8 weeks) since the Great Depression.

And now a new notch on his belt of Hope & Change:  More Americans on food stamps since records began for the program.

A record 38.2 million Americans were enrolled in the food stamp program at latest count, up 246,000 from the previous month and the latest in record-high monthly tallies that began in December 2008.

Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy groceries. The Agriculture Department updated enrollment data on Friday with a preliminary figure for November.

USDA estimates up to $58 billion will be spent on food stamps this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, with average enrollment of 40.5 million people. Food stamps were renamed the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program in 2008.

The answer, which Dan repeatedly reminds me, is that in order to know there IS a cancer — you must see it first.  Tano in her comments, for example, perfectly illustrates and reinforces our points here at GayPatriot.  She doesn’t listen, she doesn’t debate, she doesn’t have facts on her side, and she doesn’t express any of the elements of patriotism that were part of the founding of this great Republic.

She is a liberal lickspittle for re-spewing the talking points generated from the elitist copy machines at MoveOn.org and the DNC.  The Powers-That-Be, one might say.  She is just a goose-stepping foot soldier.  One can only feel sympathy for such a creature.  I’m sure there are many others like her in Michigan and across the USA.  Our job is to combat these lies and historic revisionism at every opportunity.

So we will continue to show our cancer for all to see because in this great democracy, we need to know where the ignorance is in order to combat it with the truth.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Their friendship and his commitment to that alliance–even before Pearl Harbor (recall that the Atlantic Charter was drafted nearly four full months before we entered the war)–helped keep the bond between our two nations strong, allowing us to win the war, after overcoming many obstacles and numerous setbacks early in the war

So, despite the failure of FDR’s economic policies to end the Great Depression, I consider him the greatest president of the last century for helping save civilization from Nazism.

Over at Big Government, Burt Folsom offers a different view.  That History professor gives the laurels to the Gipper:  ”Reagan, by contrast [to FDR & Woodrow Wilson], won the Cold War and also revived the American economy from decades of abuse. He was successful both at home and abroad.“

Folsom contends there were three parts to the Gipper’s genius: his vision, his character and his teachabilty:  ”We have to believe in something and we have force of character, but we also have to be ready to modify.”

Read the whole thing and let me know:  who is right, that historian on this blogger?  Like the Gipper, I am willing to modify my views when circumstances call for a change.

Reagan was just plain likable. Of all the subjects I’ve studied, few were as universally liked. Sure, Reagan, as president, was demonized by the Left, but that’s what the Left does: indecent, ugly rage. Still, even most liberals muster nice words about Reagan personally.

Central to that likability was Reagan’s humility. The word “I” didn’t dominate his conversation, unless he was poking fun at himself. He was no narcissist. Ronald Reagan was not full of pride; he was thoroughly unpossessed of self-love.

And the Gipper was a plain ol’ nice guy.  He didn’t let the barbs of the media–and there were many–get to him.  I speculate that it was his lady’s love that made him so strong.  The leftists’ barbs bounced right off him because he was confident in his beliefs and strengthened by Nancy’s affection. 

He didn’t need love himself; he got all the validation he needed just from one look in his wife’s eyes.

Kengor concludes with an anecdote about the Gipper’s common touch which shows why our Ron was such a great man.