Stupid People Are Ruining America

Highlights from Herman Cain's CPAC speech:

UPDATE: Don't miss the rest of this great speech!

Reactions to Romney at CPAC

Mixed reactions to Mitt Romney's CPAC speech via Twitter:

Dozens of CPAC kids more interested in a fake Palin than a real Romney: http://politi.co/exv3Xk ~ jmartpolitico

Romney looks and sounds presidential, but *IS* he presidential? ~ sistertoldjah

• No, he's RINO ~ tatt2d

Hi. I'm Mitt "Individual Mandate" Romney. Watch me lose tens of millions of dollars in a pointless effort to become president! ~ jpodhoretz

Romney wants the presidency so bad, I'm almost inclined to vote for the poor guy. Like a four year pity date or something. ~ resnikoff

I really, really like Romney, I voted for him in '08. I just can't get past MassCare. ~ CraigR3521

The best part about Romney getting the nomination in 2012 is that he'll lose & we'll finally be rid of him. ~ BrentTeichman

Romney CPAC cheat sheet: Good things--America, federalism, free enterprise, founders. Bad things--Europe, organic food, Chicago, apologies ~ khennessey

ROMNEY trying to re-create himself into a Conservative from a RINO. Don't believe it. Remember ROMNEYCARE. ~ SueDinNY

Funny to hear Romney talk about Obama reinventing himself ~ GarrettQuinn

• Best joke in the speech so far! ~ LizMair

Mitt Romney will never apologize for America. Will he apologize for Mitt Romney versions 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0? ~ MattCover

Mitt Romney will never apologize for America. Okay, but will he apologize for the individual mandate idea? ~ stackiii

I wonder why Romney didn't tout his highly successful health care reforms at CPAC11 ~ imillhiser

Why isn't Mitt Romney talking about the abject failure of government-run health care? Does he want me to? I will... #handsoff ~ stackiii

Romney: These job fairs and unemployment lines are president Obama’s Hoovervilles and they’ve got to end. ~ jnsmall

CPAC Romney: Limited government is the answer! Hmmm... RomneyCare = Limited government? ~ RightKlik

Romney hasn't figured out how to explain Mass.' Romneycare (quite similar to ObamaCare). Never mentioned it in CPAC speech. ~ CTuckerAJC

Romney slams Obama's "they get, we give diplomacy" at CPAC ~ TobyHarnden

Romney hasnt officially announced. His speech uses conditional tense in ref to presidential run. #GrammarNerd ~ ProLifePolitics

VOTE FOR MITT! The man who couldn't beat the man who couldn't beat Obama! ~ RichardMcenroe

Hard to believe Mitt Romney is 63 ~ JimGeraghty

• Even harder to believe he's a Republican! ~ ironelbow

Mitt Romney just shook my hand and I asked him how I can get my hair like his. He said, "Your hair is just as great." ~ RyanRMiner

Donald Trump needs to ask Mitt Romney who makes his hair. ~ sarahbellumd

X-posted

I Found RINO Droppings at CPAC

I'm here at CPAC, where everyone is [supposedly] conservative. But apparently, some RINOs have wandered into the herd of 11,000:

I cannot attest to whether David Frum and his supporters are sane, but conservative they are not. NTTAWWT, but this is the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Addendum:

How do you explain this? A CPAC straw poll:

Five percent is 5% too much!

Perhaps not coincidentally, I did spot Eleanor Clift lurking in the shadows earlier today.

X-posted

CPAC Theater: Iranium

I had the opportunity to view a screening of Iranium today at CPAC. Iranium is a well-crafted movie that presents a chilling perspective on the challenges presented by the apocalyptic extremists who run Iran. The film can be viewed online for free for a limited time:

View the trailer here.

The film's director, Alex Traiman, led a question and answer session after the screening.

Take home points:

1. Failure to address the threat posed by a nuclear Iran is not an option.

2. Containment is not a viable strategy.

This is a movie that deserves to go viral. You can by a DVD copy here.

Synopsis:

Iran's nuclear program presents a threat to international stability. Yet successive American administrations-Republican and Democratic alike-have misread the intentions and actions of the Iranian regime.

How dangerous is a nuclear Iran, even if it never detonates a weapon? What are the guiding principles of the Iranian leadership? To what lengths would the regime go to carry out its agenda? How far have Iran's leaders already gone to fund the world's most powerful terrorist organizations? And why have American leaders failed to gain the upper hand in relations with Iran during the past 30 years?

In approximately 60 minutes, Iranium powerfully reports on the many aspects of the threat America and the world now faces using rarely-before seen footage of Iranian leaders, and interviews with 25 leading politicians, Iranian dissidents, and experts on: Middle East policy, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.

Iranium documents the development of Iran's nuclear threat, beginning with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the ideology installed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.

Iranium tracks Iran's use of terror as a tool of policy, beginning with the 444 day seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, through Iran's insurgent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iranium details the brutal nature of the Iranian regime to its own citizens, and the Iranian people's desire to rejoin the international community.

Iranium outlines the various scenarios the greater Middle East and the Western world may face should Iran cross the nuclear threshold.

CPAC Theater Shedule

X-posted

Repeal ― or Make a Deal?

Wherein Mitch Daniels proposes a "truce" on ObamaCare in the Wall Street Journal:

Many of us governors are hoping for either a judicial or legislative rescue from this impending disaster, and recent court decisions suggest there's a chance of that. But we can't count on a miracle—that's only permitted in Washington policy making. We have no choice but to prepare for the very real possibility that the law takes effect in 2014...

If there's to be a train wreck, we governors would rather be spectators than conductors. But if the federal government is willing to reroute the train to a different, more productive track, we are here to help.

[emphasis added]

I'm not encouraged by Daniels' use of the word "miracle" to describe repeal of Obamacare. Does Daniels think that repeal of Obamacare would be a miracle because he thinks a Republican is unlikley to win the White House in 2012? Does he think Republicans would somehow fail to repeal Obamacare if Americans entrust the GOP with opportunity to do so?

I understand there's a need for a "Plan B," but I see no reason to suggest that a repeal of Obamacare would be miraculous, even if the courts don't make it especially easy for us. And speaking of miracles, I see no reason to think that Obama and the Democrats would ever agree to the truce that Daniels has proposed.

Pointing to some red meat in Daniels' article, Jim Geraghty assures us that Daniels' proposal to reform the reform is not an "acquiescence to the permanence of Obamacare."

I hope Jim is right. But Mitch Daniels has not earned a reputation for an appreciation for smaller government:

“He’s kind of a more of a ‘trains run on time’ kind of guy, like a balanced budget kind of guy. He wants the government to be efficient but he doesn’t necessarily want it to be smaller... I get a sense from some of the things he’s done that his political instincts aren’t quite where they should be in a terms of limited government point of view. ”

Unfortunately, this new truce proposal from Mitch Daniels seems to comport with his reputation.

While conservatives are working night and day to derail the ObamaCare express before it derails our economy and our freedom, Mitch Daniels is thinking of ways to ensure that the train shows up on time, telling the Obama administration that he's "here to help."

I don't like that.

PS: Remember, this isn't Daniels' first time calling for a unilateral truce.

Update: Good questions from Protein Wisdom...

Is this the GOP trial balloon for “principled” compromise?

And if so, is this the kind of conservative-friendly usurpation of liberties that the Republicans believe they can sell to country at large?

Update II: I should hasten to add that anyone running for the GOP nomination for POTUS should seriously be considering the options relating to defunding Obamacare.

Update III: Mark Levin: I can’t vote for Mitch Daniels (2-14-11)

Update IV: Mitch Daniels’s Obamacare Problem: "Why is Governor Daniels extending the hand of peace . . . when Obamacare has been mortally wounded in the courts and the U.S. House of Representatives?"

Memeorandum thread

X-posted

Butter, Guns AND Corporate Welfare

via WSJ

Skeptics in the statist democrat media (and even some RINOs) say tea partyers can't be serious about tackling the federal budget deficit unless they're prepared to commit political suicide by decimating Social Security and Medicare immediately. Senator Rand Paul begs to differ:

My proposal would first roll back almost all federal spending to 2008 levels, then initiate reductions at various levels nearly across the board. Cuts to the Departments of Agriculture and Transportation would create over $42 billion in savings each, while cuts to the Departments of Energy and Housing and Urban Development would save about $50 billion each. Removing education from the federal government's jurisdiction would create almost $80 billion in savings alone. Add to that my proposed reductions in international aid, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and other federal agencies, and we arrive at over $500 billion.

My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity. But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt. It would keep 85% of our government funding in place and not touch Social Security or Medicare.

Rand is prepared to slash spending in the Defense Department:

My proposal would also cut wasteful spending in the Defense Department. Since 2001, our annual defense budget has increased nearly 120%. Even subtracting the costs of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, spending is up 67%. These levels of spending are unjustifiable and unsustainable.

It's time to end corporate welfare:

Consistently labeled for elimination, specifically by House Republicans during the 1990s, one of Commerce's main functions is delivering corporate welfare to American firms that can compete without it. My proposal would scale back the Commerce Department's spending by 54% and eliminate corporate welfare.

We have two choices. Get serious about big cuts or make the kids work as indentured servants for the Chinese:

First, if you believe a particular program should be exempt from these cuts, I challenge you to find another place in the budget where the same amount can feasibly be cut and we can replace it.

Second, consider this: Is any particular program, whatever its merits, worth borrowing billions of dollars from foreign nations to finance programs that could be administered better at the state and local level, or even taken over by the private sector?

So will we do this or should we tell the kids to start learning Chinese?

Memeorandum thread

X-posted

The President Who Stood By Our Side

From No Sheeples Here:

The Enemy in the White House: Treachery Alert

Remember when Barack Hussein promised "ruthless pragmatism"? Here's what that looks like:

The latest revelation from Wikileaks is the most damaging so far to the Anglo-American Special Relationship. The disclosure in The Telegraph today that the Obama Administration “secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty” points to an astonishing betrayal of America’s closest friend and ally, that may have significant implications for the relationship between David Cameron and Barack Obama...

The matter is serious enough to merit Congressional hearings in Washington as well as parliamentary hearings in London. It is easy to see why the Obama team refused to allow the US Senate access to the negotiating documents for New START, as they would have sparked outrage on both sides of the Atlantic that would almost certainly have killed the Treaty. The Telegraph report clearly contradicts repeated claims by the Obama negotiating team that no side deals were struck with their Russian counterparts. Not for the first time, the current US administration has been eager to appease America’s enemies while shamelessly undercutting her allies.

When Obama asks for permission, he's not really asking:

According to the Telegraph’s report on the cables, the Obama administration asked permission of the British government to share the details of their nuclear program, and were refused. The Obama administration agreed to do it anyway without letting the UK know.

Obama's every move weakens America and diminishes the freedom of individual Americans. We have an enemy in the White House.

Reactions from the conservasphere...

Nice Deb: "Holy crap."

Ed Morrissey: "Congress should immediately investigate this, and if possible the Senate should revoke its ratification of START."

Gateway Pundit: "The state-run media won’t touch this."

William Teach: "One thing we can expect is that the UK media will surely stop giving Obama and preferential treatment..." Let's hope so!

Thanks a lot, Corker! Have you started looking for your next job yet?

X-posted

Rule 5 Video: Name That Band

Can you name this band? The image above is a hint. Another hint after the video...

This is a rare full-length version of this music video. I found a portion of the video on Dailymotion, but the Dailymotion clip only contains the first half. After I searched for about two hours, I found the video in its entirety on the director's website.

In celebration of the oft-forgotten MEGO clause of Rule 5:

B. Mind the MEGO factor -- All politics all the time gets boring after a while. Observant readers will notice that the headlines at Hot Air often feature silly celebrity tabloid stuff and News Of The Weird. Even a stone political junkie cannot subsist on a 24/7 diet of politics...it's a safety valve to make sure we don't become humorless right-wing clones of those Democratic Underground moonbats.

*Hint 2: This band was featured on the soundtrack of this movie:

Three Cheers for Judicial Deactivism

Time to coin some new terms...

Unless you've been under a rock for the past 24 hours, you know that Federal Judge Roger Vinson ruled against Obamacare in its entirety. The Marxist left, including the White House, has accused Judge Vinson of extreme "judicial activism" and of "legislating from the bench."

Hilarious!

Do lefties have any idea what the words "activism" and "legislating" mean?

In essence, Judge Vinson deactivated unconstitutional legislation.

Perhaps we should call that judicial deactivation. Alternatively, you might say that Vinson wasunlegislating from the bench.

I say it's GOOD NEWS.