The Good Book ...........

Some books of Scripture tell us that pride goes before a fall, and with the midterm elections looming perhaps nothing encapsulates the truth of this maxim more than the leadership of the Democrat Party and its constituency of liberal media elites.


The Left's inability to engage opposing views with seriousness and respect and their unwillingness to tolerate divergent opinions within their own ranks reveal an ugly intolerance lurking beneath their veneer of open-mindedness, an intolerance that has fueled the continued, rapid growth of the Tea Party and all but sealed the electoral fate of many Democrats come next Tuesday.

Not that I’m complaining you understand.

A new series of advertisements for MSNBC on the airwaves this past week capture perfectly the kind of paternalistic condescension that's crippling the Left in the eyes of so many American people. The ads are intended to communicate the spirit of progress that guides the network, and to set MSNBC above and apart from its chief competition and ideological nemesis, Fox News. 


In airing these ads, MSNBC is essentially extending an invitation to the American people. "Join us" they say, in our quest to "move forward" towards a better America for all. There's only one small problem. According the ideological litmus test imposed by the network, vast segments of the American population don't qualify to participate in MSNBC's vision.

Among the many images included in the ads is a snapshot of Obama signing the health care legislation, a picture of two men exchanging wedding vows in a same-sex wedding ceremony, and footage of the First Family celebrating Obama's nomination at the DNC convention in 2008. These are the kind of things MSNBC has in mind when it speaks of American society's "evolution" towards a better tomorrow for all. Therefore, if you voted for John McCain, or opposed the Democrats' health care legislation, or believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then you are a heartless, selfish, racist bigot who is anti-progress and anti-American. 


As anyone who's ever tuned in to watch Chris Matthews or Rachael Maddow or Keith Olbermann knows, MSNBC's vision of a "diverse" America does not include the conservative viewpoint.

The Left's brand of tolerance was also recently on display at National Public Radio, where longtime news analyst Juan Williams was fired after he appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and expressed a "controversial" opinion about Muslims and September 11th. For daring to say aloud what many Americans think and feel in the post-9/11 age – namely, that boarding an airplane alongside individuals dressed in traditional Muslim garb makes him feel nervous – he was accused of violating NPR's standards of journalistic ethics. Never mind the fact that 99% of Williams' commentary on O'Reilly's show that evening was in defense of a tolerant, sensitive approach to Islam, or that NPR's other correspondents routinely color their reporting with their own Liberal, hyper-partisan bent. For daring to depart from the accepted Liberal line, Williams had to go.

The Tea Party phenomenon, in particular, has the likes of Matthews, Maddow, and Olbermann sputtering with outrage and confusion. These commentators simply can't fathom how anyone could support the ideas advanced by such backward Neanderthals! Obama and the Democratic leadership are similarly irritated by the ongoing success of the movement, and have, like their ideological brethren in the media, concluded that the only possible explanation for the American public's lack of support is a combination of ignorance, fear, stupidity, and the evil influence of shadowy special interest money. David Brooks recently satirized the delusional hubris of the Democrats in a New York Times op-ed:

"Democrats are lagging this year because the country appears incapable of appreciating the grandeur of their accomplishments". That's because, as several commentators have argued over the past few weeks, many Americans are nearsighted and ill-informed. Or, as Obama himself noted last week, they get scared, and when Americans get scared they stop listening to facts and reason. . . . The Democrats' problem, as some senior officials have mentioned, is that they are so darn captivated by substance, it never occurs to them to look out for their own political self-interest. . . . They see this campaign as a poetic confrontation between good (themselves) and pure evil (Karl Rove and his group, American Crossroads).

As Nancy Pelosi put it at a $50,000-a-couple fund-raiser, 'Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from G-d knows where – because they won't disclose it – is pouring in”. And what is more, they allege it’s foreign money. How odd when Obama was going to make the world love us. So who are these alien philanthropists of the “Great Right  Wing Conspiracy”/

Good luck getting an answer to that question from Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

Amidst all the mudslinging, rationalizing, and scapegoating, there hasn't been much room for any substantive discourse across party and ideological lines; the Democrats simply refuse to engage on this level. The more America's cohort of self-identified "Tea Party Patriots" continues to grow, the deeper the Left buries its collective head in the sand. One is reminded of Scarlett O'Hara's famous method of dealing with the unpleasantness of reality: "I'll think about it tomorrow!"

We all know individuals like that and they’re all losers either now or soon.

With one day to go before the election, however, the time for Democrats to change course has run out.


Please! Please! Pretty Please!

Imagine all the People .................

Imagine for a moment the entire Supreme Court was wiped out in an asteroid strike, or maybe they ate some really bad clams. Whatever.

With the Supreme Court temporarily out of the picture, could Congress and the White House ignore the Constitution, shutting down newspapers and locking up tea partiers or ACLU members? Apparently.

"I have been fascinated by Delaware’s Christine O'Donnell's constitutional worldview ..." Slate magazine senior editor Dahlia Lithwick confessed. 

O'Donnell had said in a debate, "When I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional."

To which Lithwick, a former appellate law clerk, Stanford Law grad and widely cited expert on the Supreme Court, responded, "How weird is that, I thought. Isn't it a court's job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn't that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?"

Newsweek's Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP's Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a "citation of constitutional authority" for every proposed piece of legislation. "We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary," Adler wrote. "An extra constitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary."

A progressive blogger, meanwhile, writes in U.S. News & World Report that such talk of requiring constitutionality is "just plain wacky."

Before we get to the historical niceties, a question: Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?

How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?

Yet, according to this creepy logic, there's no reason for congressmen to pass, obey or even consider the supreme law of the land. Re-impose slavery? Sure! Let's see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It isn’t unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!

And of course, that means the president can't veto legislation because it's unconstitutional, because that's apparently not his job. Wouldn't want to "encroach" on the judiciary!

Of course, reasonable people understand how absurd all of this is.

There's nothing in the Constitution -- nothing! -- that says the Supreme Court is the final or sole arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

Nor is there anything in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that famously established judicial review. Nor is there in Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 case in which the court ruled that its findings are the law of the land.

George Washington vetoed an apportionment bill in 1792 because it was unconstitutional. What was he thinking? If only he had a Ben Adler around to tell him what a fool he was.

Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the national bank in 1832 because he believed it was unconstitutional. He added at the time that, "It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision."

Even the Supreme Court has never claimed that it is the only branch with the power or duty to interpret the Constitution," says Jeff Sikkenga, a constitutional historian at Ashland University's Ashbrook Center. "In fact, it has said that certain constitutional questions like war and peace are left to the political branches to decide."

The debate over whether the courts are the final word on the Constitution is more than 200 years old. The debate over whether they are the sole arbiter of constitutionality is extremely recent and extremely silly.

But it's also necessary because too many politicians -- in both parties -- have abdicated their most solemn duty: to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. George W. Bush signed campaign finance reform even though he thought much of it was unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi thinks the Constitution has as much relevance as a pet rock. When asked if the health-care bill was Constitutional, her perpetually wide-open eyes grew perceptibly wider as she incredulously asked, "Are you serious?"

The real issue is quite simple. If more politicians were faithful to the Constitution, the government would be restrained. And restraining government is "weird," "wacky" and "dangerous" to so many liberals today.

Indeed, according to liberals, anyone who demands we adhere to our Constitution must be all those things. If you want to ensure that this or any president is qualified to take on the job, you’re a “Birther” and if you actually believe that the Tenth Amendment means what it says that “powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” you’re a “Tenther”.

For those from across the pond or those living by Lake Havasu this means that if the Constitution doesn’t award a given power to the Feds, which currently seems to mean Obama, it’s none of his business.

And then there are “Truthers” who believe that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove brought about 911.

While the former are reputed to be all right-wing nuts complete with White Power tattoos, the latter are all liberals.

Happy Halloween!

  

Boo .................. Who?

I spend a good deal of time in this space criticizing Obama. His policies are wrongheaded; his manner is arrogant and condescending; his ideology is Marxist in tenor and content. He is, through his first 21 months, the worst president in American history, a leader who has purposefully polarized the country along racial and economic lines for his personal benefit.

So, why am I grateful for President Obama? Here are five reasons:

Five: Obama is dumb. 

Although the media has proclaimed President Obama as the "Smartest Man Ever to Walk the Earth," he is actually rather stupid, at least when it comes to pushing his agenda. Unlike President Clinton, who knew enough to moderate himself in order to win re-election, Obama believes that he has the King Midas mouth -- the word he speaks will automatically turn to electoral gold.

If his policies aren't turning up roses, it must be because it's just that he's not utilizing that King Midas mouth often enough. So he turns up the rhetoric, all the while irritating the entire populace.

Four: Obama has exposed the media. 

When President Bush won re-election in 2004, the New Media proclaimed victory. I believed that the Old Media would have its revenge and they would dedicate themselves completely to the promotion of Democratic candidates. I underestimated. 

The Old Media has actually acted as a public relations machine for Democratic candidates, particularly Obama, as well as a rear guard protecting them from attack. They are blatantly obviously and openly liberal. And that means we can discount them. The Old Media is busily playing Brynhildr, achieving Pyrrhic victory in 2008 but destroying themselves for all time as a respected voice of objectivity.

Three: Obama has elevated the discourse. 

Or rather, he has forced conservatives to elevate their discourse. Believe it or not, the political debate in this country is not at a new low but at a marked high. While Obama's rhetoric is third grade at best he has triggered a debate that is historic in its implications. 

It is rare throughout our history for Americans to openly talk about founding principles, the relevance of the Constitution and the wisdom of the Bill of Rights. In May, the Government Printing Office announced that since September 2009, it had sold 8,700 copies of the Constitution to the public; in 2009, Congress authorized a resolution to print 441,000 copies of the Constitution for distribution by the House and another 100,000 copies for distribution by the Senate. 

Our educational system has done an awful job of educating Americans about their heritage and basic values. Now we're doing it ourselves, and it's incredible to watch.

Two: Obama has killed the race card.

He didn't do it purposefully. In fact, Obama himself remains one of the prime practitioners of the race card. President Obama has, however, ended the legitimacy of shouting "racist" as a political tool. In the past, too many politicians (think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) have been able to maintain the illusion of moderation by shouting down political opponents. 

Now that we have a half-black president, it is obvious to everyone that opposition to a black person's politics is not equivalent to racism. Obama's foolhardy use of the race card has rendered it absolutely moot.

One: Crystallization.

Thank G-d we live in an age when our choices don't generally mean life and death; even our civilizational foes threaten our existence over the course of decades rather than months. Our choices aren't stark but instead gradual. That means, however, that it is difficult to get excited on a daily basis about the events that surround us.

At least it was until President Obama. He believes he can ram his agenda down our throats wholesale. We aren't facing a gradual slide toward socialism under President Obama. Instead, we once again face a stark choice. And stark choices motivate us to action.

So thank you, Obama voters -- well, those of you who are still willing to admit that you were Obama voters. You've given this nation new hope. 

Before Obama, this country was already a hell of a lot closer to socialism than the small government capitalism of the Founding Fathers; true change would have been restoration rather than a "forward to poverty" leveling. 

Now we're not going to stop until we get true change. Perhaps, Obama's promises weren't so empty after all.

Next Tuesday will give a hint ........................

If Not Us, Who? If Not Now, When?

Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day and not just on Obama.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is "the most important election in our lifetime" or something like that. 

But, having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, I cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that, unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party's "fundamental transformation". Those were President Obama's words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them, namely changing America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth. The Left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens. For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state just because it proposes to raise the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French -- including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 -- that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims -- who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state. Latinos, Blacks, Muslims, Gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB -- Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds. With a Democratic victory the country's very motto -- E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many One" -- will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather than one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany's experiment with multiculturalism has "utterly failed," but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

America will continue its economic slide. With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

America will become increasingly secular. With a Democratic victory, the left's goal of rendering America's other motto, "In God We Trust," an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensable moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide.

Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs.


It was above all about America. And even more so, it’s about Obama.

Witness Obama’s strategy with the Hispanic community. Recently, on a Spanish TV station Obama is on record with words like this. “You need to get out and vote and punish your enemies”.

This from “the post-racial president”?

And just who are the Hispanic community’s enemies?

El Dia de Los Muertos

There are pluses and there are minuses to writing this Blog and one of the latter is feeling obligated to read the feeds from most liberal sources. Usually I do that first thing in the morning and it works wonders for my figure because, after reading much of this mindless blather, I don’t feel like a lot of breakfast.

Yesterday revealed a lot about liberals and we saw that they’re not too bright and they are the most intolerant people in the world.


Let’s talk about stupidity first..

A couple of days ago, Sarah Palin made a speech where she asked the audience to reserve the post-electoral celebration until after the election. She reminded them that this is not 1773.


Well the liberal blogosphere lit up with derision including such luminaries as Politico and Daily Kos which is financed by George Soros. And I’m naming only a couple but it was all over the place which you could not have failed to notice if you tuned into any radio or TV network.

Oops!

Those liberal outlets have one thing in common. They all flunked History.

Governor Palin was talking to a Tea Party audience and she was talking about the Boston Tea Party. Guess when that happened? Not 1776 which all the liberal voices assumed but rather 1773.

The key to understanding liberals is twofold.

For a start, they always telegraph who they fear and their tactics are always the same. First they ridicule and if that fails, they denigrate.

We saw it with Reagan, we saw it with George W. and we saw it with Sarah Palin. Well two of those went on to occupy the Oval Office and the jury is still out on the third. Note though that Bob Dole and McCain were not similarly lampooned. Remember?

And the other dead give-away is that liberals are not. The ones who claim they value free speech are the ones who want to strangle it. The liberals are the ones who want to cut off talk radio. They are the ones who want to put Fox off the air. They are the ones who want the “Fairness Doctrine”.

Now it’s time to mention Juan Williams.

Yes the guy is a liberal but at least he’s been civil so far. But now he has broken the NPR code of silence and demanded that the organization stand on its own feet and cut off the umbilical cord of governmental support which means my tax dollars. Especially when the views expressed are way out on the extreme of the political spectrum.

Vivian Schiller is the CEO of National Public Radio and she put the icing on the cake of the Juan Williams’ firing when she justified it with this gem. “His views should been restricted to conversations with his psychiatrist”. Well it took about 20 minutes for the NPR lawyers to scurry around in order to explain what Vivian meant to say.

But they didn’t get to Gwen Ifill of PBS in time because she simply piled on with the same or similar rhetoric.

And isn’t it telling that the liberal Blogs have been silent as well as much of the liberal media. Where is Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson?

But this Blog calls NPR out here and now and the alphabet networks as well.

And so, the week went. One liberal screw-up after another as we close in on November 2.

The Day of the Dead!

The Elites versus the Rest of Us!

Right after I first arrived in this country and it became clear that I was here to stay, people in England were curious to learn how I, and others, could cope without a Queen or some other entity around which to rally.

“Yes”, they said, “We know there’s a flag but that can’t be enough” And they were right but they overlooked our founding documents. First there was the Declaration of Independence which was followed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And those have stood us in good stead, and still do, unless Obama and crowd have their way.

For a start, in the last couple of weeks, Obama, “the constitutional law professor”, misquotes the second paragraph of the Declaration. Not once, not twice but three times to my knowledge. Obama avers “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights …………”. Almost Barack but not quite.

There are three words missing between “endowed” and “with”.

For extra credit, what are the missing words?

Times up! Those words are, “by their Creator”.

Now Obama claims to be Christian or, at least the Jeremiah Wright variant thereof but, even if he’s Moslem, acknowledging an ultimate power should not be an issue as, after all, we’re talking about the same G-d but I do admit that could be in doubt as one listens to the rhetoric coming out of Mecca and elsewhere.

But, it seems it is a problem for Obama just as it seems to be for other liberals.

Arm in arm with all this, there is the issue of Christine O’Donnell who is running to take Joe Biden’s Delaware seat in the Senate.

In all of life's tribulations, there is nothing so aggravating as being condescended to by an idiot. In last week's CNN debate in the Delaware Senate race between the astonishingly well-spoken Christine O'Donnell and the unfortunate-looking Chris Coons, O'Donnell had to put up with it from Coons for 90 minutes.

O'Donnell wiped the floor with Coons, moderators Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Karibjanian, and the idiotic University of Delaware students asking questions -- all of whom were against her.
With the nation on the verge of another great depression -- the brunt of which, to my delight, will fall most heavily on college students -- guess what the dunderheads asked? GUESS! That's right: They asked about abortion "in the case of rape or incest," "don't ask, don't tell," doing something about "our carbon footprint," and the kook-minister who was going to burn Korans, because ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE!

O'Donnell's responses couldn't have been better if Thomas Sowell were whispering them in her ear. But after every well-thought-out answer she gave, Coons would act as if O'Donnell were speaking in tongues and make a dismissive remark to the moderators: "If you can reconcile all those comments, you're an even more talented reporter than I think you are, Nancy."

O'Donnell managed to simply answer the questions without wasting everyone's time with snippy asides about Coons' replies.

Then Coons would say something incomprehensible, false or insane -- such as his conspiracy theory about the Australians uniting with the Chinese against America.

But I digress.

Coons triumphantly observed that the knotty issue of ”separation of church and state” is enshrined in our Constitution and Ms. O’Donnell questioned that assertion. This brought forth derisive laughter and gasps of shock from an audience that should know better, law students.

The fact remains that the Constitution does not demand any such separation. The First Amendment merely requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.


The actual “separation” phrase can be found only in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802 but it’s not in the Constitution and so Ms. O’Donnell was right and Mr. Coons was wrong.

Much more scary though was the proof that a bunch of law students are seemingly being taught nonsense and/or they haven’t actually read the document in question. Whichever it is, it does not promise a healthy future for jurisprudence in the country.

If it’s not ignorance of our founding documents on the part of political candidates, it’s a desire to change them.

We already know that Obama sees them as constraints and he’s right about that, thank heavens but now we learn that members of Congress feel the same way.

Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was being pressed in a live TV debate, so he may be excused for blurting out the truth.

Here’s a portion of what the very liberal Mr. McGovern said:
“We have a lousy Supreme Court decision [in the Citizens United case] that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings."

What a stunning statement! There are several things to consider in this argument. For us as constitutional conservatives, it’s entirely acceptable to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court. I say every day that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision and should be corrected. The Kelo ruling set a dangerous precedent. That 2005 case allowed the City of New London to condemn a private homeowner’s beautiful house, not for a bridge or tunnel, not for a fort or a federal highway, but simply because the city government could gain more revenue by taking the house and leasing the property to a private developer! That’s a shocking ruling. If that ruling is not corrected, your home will no longer be your castle, it will only be your trailer.

Congressman McGovern doesn’t take issue with the Supreme Court, however, he says the Constitution itself is wrong. Did Mr. McGovern take an oath to support the U.S. Constitution? Does he consider himself bound by his oath?

Sure, you can responsibly disagree with portions of the Constitution. Ronald Reagan, for example, disagreed with the two-term limit for President. He thought the Twenty-second Amendment had been a mistake. But Reagan dutifully left office after two terms. Reagan would have supported an amendment to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but as long as it was in the Constitution, he felt bound to respect it.

In Congressman McGovern’s case, however, we see why liberals believe in a “living Constitution.” The living Constitution idea was characterized by Justice Scalia as a Magic Slate. You can write on it, get the interpretation you want, then lift up the plastic screen, and re-write your constitution, according to the passions of the moment.

I think Mr. McGovern is wrong in his analysis of the Citizens United ruling. The Supreme Court did not say that money was more important, or even the same thing, as human beings. It said nothing like that. What the Court did say is that you don’t lose your First Amendment rights because you express your ideas through a corporation, a union, or a non-profit organization.

In striking down major portions of the McCain-Feingold Act, the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot stop pro-life groups, for example, from highlighting the records of politicians like Jim McGovern before an election. By preventing pro-life citizens from drawing voters’ attention to how their elected representatives actually vote, this unwise and unconstitutional measure denied citizens their rights to communicate about political matters. That’s one of the main reasons for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Now that he mentions it, does Jim McGovern really think “money is [not] the same as human beings?” If so, maybe he’ll join Congressman Mike Pence’s (R-Ind.) drive to de-fund Planned Parenthood. That outfit gets billions in taxpayer funds and it kills 350,000 unborn children—undeniably human beings—every year.

It would be great to welcome Jim McGovern to the ranks of those of us who believe human lives are more important than money. I’m not cynical, but I must admit I have doubts that Mr. McGovern, should he win re-election next month, will put his fine words into practice when it comes to unborn children.

Now, we can see why “constitutional conservatism” is important. Without a firm reliance on the Constitution as our anchor, the entire ship of state is adrift. Under the current administration and the current Congress, our ship of state is headed for the rocks.

G-d Bless America and a huge “thank you” for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

Will he? Will he won't he??

Two great questions ricochet around the capital in the countdown to the midterms. The first,  Does Obama plan to seek re-election? A remarkable number of top advisers have left the administration. Rank-and-file Democrats are listless. And the economic news is, well, everyone knows about that. President Obama is rumored to be dissatisfied, grumpy, and isolated. He doesn't even enjoy Camp David. 

And his wife is pissed about the whole schtick. 

Except for Airforce 2 and the services of the White House mess. Let's face it, it beats grocery shopping and doing dishes.

The second question is: Will he, can he, "pull a Clinton" after a presumed electoral defeat and tack to the center?

The answer to the first question may have come from Vice President Joe Biden, who was seeking to quash yet a third rumor making the rounds -- that he and Hillary Clinton would switch jobs in 2012. Biden blurted to London's Telegraph newspaper that Obama had asked Biden to run again as vice president in 2012. Biden, reports Biden, agreed.

It may be that the verbally incontinent vice president is freelancing again, but it's more likely that this is the president's indirect way of quieting speculation that he dislikes his job and plans to retire after one term.

The answer to the Clinton question (Bill, not Hillary) is less obvious. In an interview with The New York Times Magazine, an aide allowed as how the president has spent "a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0," but the content of the new operating system, if there is one, does not appear to be noticeably different from Obama 1.0.

Bill Clinton was able to switch gears and adjust his ideological GPS after the 1994 electoral upheaval because, above all, he believed in winning. Policy preferences would be pared back, even abandoned, in the name of victory.

Obama likes to win, too, of course. But he is so ideological, so deeply marinated in leftism (he picked up the false accusation about the Chamber of Commerce, for example, from a left-wing website), that asking him to compromise with Republicans may well cause a system crash. Though he now acknowledges that "there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects," he continues to see his presidency in such empyrean terms (and his opponents as so lacking in good faith) that compromise seems remote.

The president's peeves are a measure of his distance from the people who will determine his fate -- voters. The president pays lip service to the electorate's fear and indignation about the nation's mushrooming debt and the aggrandizement of Washington's power. He looked too much like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat" he admitted to The New York Times. But he doesn't address that concern in any substantive way. Dismay over the nature and scope of the health care behemoth he dismisses casually as the bleating of "special interests."

On the other hand, it seems really to stick in his craw that liberal Democrats are so ungrateful as to criticize him. "Democrats just congenitally tend to see the glass as half-empty," the president complained at a Democratic fundraiser in September. "If we get an historic health care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particular derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And, gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace. I thought that was going to happen quicker." 

Two weeks later, Obama repeated the plaint, telling Democrats ""It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote. It took time for workers to get the right to organize."

Having raised expectations to Olympian heights, Obama now pouts when his supporters are (inevitably) disappointed. But it's more than irritation -- their dissatisfaction seems to eat away at him. During the protracted policy review on Afghanistan, we learn from Bob Woodward's "Obama's Wars," the president's chief concern was not tactics, strategy, or victory. His preoccupation was "not losing the whole Democratic Party."

The quality of the president's annoyance at his base -- they just don't appreciate that making history takes a little time and patience -- doesn't suggest a man ready to prune his ideological ambitions. The left's critique seems always to be on his mind because that's where his conscience is. When a New York Times reporter complimented the new decor in the Oval Office, the president snapped, "I know Arianna doesn't like it. But I like taupe." 

Arianna Huffington's disparagement, even on so trivial a matter, was on his mind.

Such a mind is not supple enough for moderation.

But it's not too good to waste.