Steven Crowder reports from Detroit, a city in ruins:

In exchange for decades of entitlement programs and government spending, the people of Detroit have been rewarded with record high unemployment, failing schools, very little economic activity and a blighted landscape. Steven Crowder reports from the Motor City.

The scary thing is that most people still don’t understand how this happens.

In the WSJ today, an article by Fouad Ajami finds that the Arab world hasn’t had a change of heart since Obama was elected President:

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn’t seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that’s reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

So the reality is not whether we talk nice or not or whether we give them money or not. It all comes down to whether we give them their way. I’m not sure about you, but I’m okay with them not liking us as long as they don’t get their way. If they do, then the world is going to be in for a lot of pain.

So all of you out there that thought that we could smooth things over by electing someone that apologies and plays nice, you were wrong. Next time let’s not wreck our nation so that you can figure that one out.

Regardless of whether our current Representatives and Senators pass the current healthcare reform bill, we will not have free healthcare. With the deficit reaching an unprecedented (and mind-blowing) amount, the government will not be able to pay the bill. The only thing that they can be thinking is that they will raise taxes significantly in the aftermath of the deficit crisis. This will create a Socialistic government very similar to what is in Europe. The citizens will have a very narrow window (2010) in which we will be able to change out Congress and stall their advance. Either way, what is provided by the government through this bill will not resemble what we think of today as healthcare. It will be an overly complicated mess that will be slow and overloaded. Only by rejecting request will they be able to even function. Even by raising taxes, this will not increase the amount of money that is brought into the government coffers. There is a large block of the rich that will likely retire if taxes are increased significantly. These people currently pay the lion’s share of taxes, so expect government revenues to remain stagnant.

So for those thinking that this is a panacea, I think they are mistaken. Buckle up, because the next couple years are going to be a rough ride.

Rasmussen Reports has some polling data on the status of the political scene after one year with President Obama. From the report:

The core promise made down the stretch to voters by candidate Obama was a pledge to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. Now, more than 40% expect a tax hike and hardly anybody expects their taxes to go down. Not surprisingly, 74% of voters now view the president as politically liberal.

Just 33% believe the stimulus package has helped, and most opposed other economic initiatives including the takeover of General Motors and the cash-for-clunkers program. Among the priorities established by the president, voters consistently see deficit reduction as the most important but least likely to be achieved.

One of the really interesting stats is that 33% believe the stimulus package has helped. You can take the 33% to represent the number of people that are hard core Obama (Democrat) supports. If you look at all the economic numbers, an unbiased person will recognize that the stimulus hasn’t accomplished much other than to drive up the deficit. The one item has hurt the liberal agenda more than anything else. I will also say that George Bush was also aboard the “stimulus express”, so I don’t absolve him of responsibility.

The biggest factor affecting the economy over the next couple years is the expectation that taxes will be going up. You can bet that next year the Bush Tax Cut will be repealed an taxes will be going up. If (and more than likely when) the Health Care Reform legislation goes through, you will have additional business taxes (in the form of health insurance fee increases). Whether you agree with socialized medicine or not (I do not), the cost to those that have income will go up. All of this is making people and business save their money (or at least not spend it unless they need something). It’s very sad that people are now caught like a deer in a headlight. Uncertainty (or certainty of tax increases) will drive our economy in the wrong direction.

Expect the new bond issue to be rejected by the EBR parish voters. You don’t spend more when you are already in the hole (no matter how much it is needed).

Rasmussen reports today on some of Obama’s support numbers (which appear to be moving in the wrong direction for the president). Included in that report is this little tidbit on health care reform:

Currently, just 42% support the health care plan proposed by the President and Congressional Democrats. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. Just 31% of voters believe that Congress has a good understanding of the health care proposal.

So let me get this straight, 42% support it and only 31% believe that Congress understands it. So 11% of the people just think we have to do something even if it might be wrong. This is not encouraging.

Powerline Blog hits on one of my hang-ups with the US culture at the moment. Here is the big finish:

The only answer is that “divisive” is a criticism that applies only to conservatives. It is not possible for a liberal to be “divisive,” however crazed he or she may be. This is true even though the whole point of a political system is to decide issues about which people disagree. If people don’t disagree, it isn’t a political issue. So to argue for any political point of view is necessarily divisive. But divisiveness is a one-way street. When liberals express liberal views, that’s just being a patriotic American. When conservatives express conservative views, it’s “divisive.”

That is, sadly, how much of our country’s establishment thinks.

It happens in a lot of places, but you see this in the media especially. It’s only a partisan opinion if it is different from the commentator. If they agree, then it’s just a reasoned argument. That’s just the way it is though, so learn to live with it or prepare to be frustrated a good part of the time. The post is a good one, so read it if you get a chance.

Jay Nordlinger (National Review Online) has an article out today on Rush Limbaugh.

As far as I know, Rush Limbaugh isn’t running for anything. And he isn’t trying to be the face of the Republican party. He has a radio talk show. And, taking advantage of free speech in America, he says what he thinks. People are free to agree or disagree. That’s democracy. (Forgive the banality.) If you have a better argument, spell it out. One thing Rush has always been happy to do is engage with ideas.

Personally, I enjoy listening to Rush from time to time. I don’t always tune in, but when I do I find that he has some interesting perspectives. It’s always been tough for the Left to shut Rush up with the normal insults since Rush really doesn’t care. He’s not a minister or a politician. He’s not leading a congregation and he isn’t running for office. Prescription pain killer addiction? Yep, but he’s getting help. Divorced? Yep, but so have a lot of others. Do I think that behavior is good? No, but I’m not tuning into Rush to get guidance on my marriage. They are going to have to come up with something much better than that. I think he loves the fact that so many on the other side of the argument get all blue faced from his commentary.

Just be aware that you can turn the dial on the radio anytime you start feeling a little uneasy. At the moment, we still have a choice of what we will listen to in the media.

Those of you that have been using Google for a while know that they will often replace their standard logo with a “doodle”. A “doodle” is a modified Google logo that highlights a specific day or cause. I found it a little disappointing that an American based company can’t bring itself to highlight the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers. Bing (Microsoft’s search page) on the other hand did provide a background image commemorating the day.

I’ve had Google as my default search engine for several years, but I think I’ll try Bing for a while and see how it does.

Update: I noticed after I made my post that Fox News had an article on the search pages. It mentioned another search page: Ask(.com).

I have actually been surprised at how different the treatment of office of President of the US has been in the national media. I don’t think any national politician should be free of oversight regardless of their party affiliation and I think we should “throw the bums out” when they do things contrary to the wishes of the people. The level that party affiliation has influenced this vetting process by the national media is astounding. I haven’t trusted the news media in several years and I don’t plan on buying their product anytime soon (by viewing their ads or the program). I just wanted to point out a few stories about the past office holder that have relevance today.

With regard to the President addressing school children:

The controversy over President Obama’s speech to the nation’s schoolchildren will likely be over shortly after Obama speaks today at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.

How about the national debt:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Obama later joined his Democratic colleagues in voting en bloc against raising the debt increase.

Now Obama is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling, something lawmakers are almost certain to do despite misgivings about the federal debt. The ceiling already has been hiked three times in the past two years, and the House took action earlier this year to raise the ceiling to $13 trillion.

When it comes to the President addressing students, I see no problem with it if it is free of partisan issues, brief and is meant to motivate students to study harder and stay in school. With regard to the national debt, I didn’t like it under President Bush and I don’t like it under President Obama. It’s amazing how the tune is played differently by “the players” out there depending on who is in charge.

You just can’t believe that you are getting the whole story (or the correct story). From Mark Steyn (via Instapundit):

Gotta love this ”post-racial America”: Democrat union heavies can beat up a black guy using racial epithets and leave him in a wheelchair unable to speak - and happily (unlike, say, a black professor being asked for picture ID) it’s not “symbolic” of anything at all. Not a Sharpton in sight to speak up for him: Mr Gladney’s only shot at fame is an entry in The Guinness Book Of Records under “Least Famous Black Hate-Crime Victim In America”.

There’s more in the post, so check it out. I find it sickening how conservatives are treated by the media (as well as the current administration). You never saw this with the Bush administration…. never. The thugs in Jena deserved to be protected, but not the despicable conservative Mr. Gladney (who is treated by the media as though he deserved his beating). The disconnect is obvious.