President Reagan once said:

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

Beautiful, simply beautiful.

Ann Coulter is to the Left what Michael Moore is to the GOP-loathed, mocked, and fodder for drama.

But her WND article makes a good point:

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose “nuance” is too sophisticated for Rick Warren’s audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that “this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional.” Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not “unconstitutional,” but “constitutional” ? which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not “because historically ? because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution.”

I don’t care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn’t need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was “historically” not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words “slavery” and “slave” do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention “slavery”: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

On Obama’s “historical” argument, they shouldn’t have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution “historically” had not mentioned slavery.

Go ahead lefties, send the hate mail to cover up your champion’s shortcomings.

The truth is Obama is in serious trouble and all of you quasi socialist know it.

I think the left is beginning to see how hard it is to elect a face to office, especially when a face is all you have.

Politico reported the following from the recent Saddleback forum:

Asked which justice he wouldn?t have nominated to the Supreme Court, Barack named Justice Clarence Thomas, the court?s only African-American.

?I don?t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time, for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution,? Obama said.

Imagine that, Sen. Obama knocking Justice Thomas for not having the credentials to justify the position.

Wow.

What’s next?  First term US Senators running for President?

Exaclty what is attractive about Obama at this point?  Oh, that’s right, he isn’t a Republican and he wants to end the war.  Where do you lefties find these guys?

My guess is that the Dems are deeply concerned and are experiencing a bit of buyer’s remorse.

During the Saddleback forum, the cult figure confessed:

?Americans? greatest moral failure in my lifetime,? he said, ?has been that we still don?t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.?

But then this article surfaced and I am left pondering how the cult figure has gotten this far.

The Italian edition of Vanity Fair said that it had found George Hussein Onyango Obama living in a hut in a ramshackle town of Huruma on the outskirts of Nairobi.

Mr Obama, 26, the youngest of the presidential candidate’s half-brothers, spoke for the first time about his life, which could not be more different than that of the Democratic contender.

“No-one knows who I am,” he told the magazine, before claiming: “I live here on less than a dollar a month.”

Hey Senator, does George not count as “the least of [your] brothers”?

I truly can’t figure out who is more shallow…Obama or the people that want this clown to be president.

Here are some stats from a lefty over at Kos that hates rich white men, worships the all-benevolent Government, and skews statistics in order to justify their misguided passions.

32nd - World rank of U.S. infant mortality rate.

First - CEO to Worker pay ratio (531:1) (Second place is Brazil at 57:1)

9th - Adult Literacy Scale (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)

12th -  student reading ability (Source: OECD)

37th - U.S. rank on the Healthcare Quality Index (World Health Organization)

17th - Rank of U.S. on women’s rights (World Economic Forum Report)

29th - Life Expectancy

48th - U.S. rank on Journalistic Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders)

13th - U.S. rank on quality of life survey (Economist Magazine)

45th - Environmental Stability Index (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy)

21st - Aid to poor nations of the world (as percentage of gross national income)

Poor unfortunate soul.

This is exactly why I have reduced my blogging.  My readers want me to stop name-calling.  I want leftist idiots to stop trying to steal my country.  We are in conflict.

Then I find that McQ already addressed the Kos posting:

…per capita the US gives $.15 through the government and about $.06 privately per day.

The number one nation, Denmark, gives $.89 per person day.

Sounds like a huge difference until you do the math. Denmark has a population of a medium sized metro area in the US (5,475,791) which means, given the report’s number, it doles out exactly $1,778,810,706.35 per year in foreign aid.

So tell me - does 18 billion buy more food, build more schools and help more nations than does 1.7 billion?

Unless my schooling was as bad as some people claim it was, I’d say it is significantly more than Denmark’s contribution. But that’s the problem when you try to make comparisons like this. The total amount of money is what makes a difference, not the per capita level. While it’s nice that Denmark has that per capita level of aid, their total contribution obviously doesn’t do what ours can do.

Holy crap, the anger is coming back.  I will try to avoid calling the Kos author a lying socialist bitch, but I make no promises.

“Immense moral shortcomings” - my goodness. How does this person manage to continue to live here? Of course he (or she) makes no examination at all of the details of the stats he (or she) throws around. It’s enough that they look bad for the US and allows him (or her) to engage in a round of self-righteous moral indignation related to our assumed greed, selfishness and moral decline. It obviously fills a need.

So I’ll leave him (or her) to cry in his (or her) beer (or wine) while I continue to enjoy the Olympics. I see the games as a perfect representative of the greatness of our country. While we may not be perfect, no set of manipulated stats can hide the fact that we are and we remain the greatest nation on earth - and our immigration stats (you know, those “huddled masses”) prove it. Despite repeated statistical attempts to prove we’re not worthy, immigrants continue to flood the country and declare it the most amazing place on earth.

And if you don’t quite understand that point, look at the US men’s gymnastic team as the perfect example - 2nd generation Chinese, 2nd generation Indian, 2nd generation Russian among the rest of the team. Their parents saw the potential living in the US presented and their children realized it.

Now, that’s better.