In Jackson’s “Here In the Real World,” he sings sadly about how life doesn’t always turn out how you’d hoped, like it does in the movies.

On the silver screen, the song lyrics state, “cowboys don’t cry and heroes don’t die. And good always wins again and again.”

When it comes to dealing with terrorism, such as the attempted airplane attack on Christmas Day, Obama seems to believe in the movie version of reality where the bad guys are always foiled in the end.

But here in the real world, Al Queda has cells across the globe intent on attacking Americans. They’re plotting every minute of every day, and they see it as a war on the United States even if President Obama doesn’t.

In the real world, a suicide bomber recently killed seven CIA operatives at a base in Afghanistan’s Khost province, an Islamist extremist in November massacred 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, and five jihadists from Northern Virginia were arrested in Pakistan in early December.

Obama’s movie script doesn’t contain the words “war” or “jihadists.” The Obama administration, like most liberals, goes to hilarious lengths to avoid using words that imply a moral judgment – even when talking about people trying to kill us. The president initially downplayed the threat of the attempted airplane bomber by saying he was an “isolated extremist.” For her part, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ineptly tried to replace “act of terrorism” with “man-caused disaster.” That’s supposed to make it better? Get in the real world.

With Obama’s background as a lawyer, his movie wouldn’t be complete without a courtroom drama. Perhaps that’s why he’s refusing to treat our captured enemies as prisoners of war. Instead, Obama’s closing down Guantanamo Bay and moving our enemies here. Rather than facing military tribunals, as they should, they’re given lawyers and civilian court cases, where they’ll star on the international stage in a media circus.

Rather than implementing effective anti-terrorism strategies to keep Americans safe, Obama’s policies appear to be knee-jerk reactions to Bush-era policies. If President Bush did it, the administration reasons, it must be bad.

So, we can close Guantanamo and move the prisoners to Illinois, we can release detainees and allow them to return to the battlefield against us, we can give terrorists lawyers and Miranda rights as opposed to interrogating them about more planned attacks and we can outlaw interrogation techniques such as water boarding.

Obama naively thinks if we just commit to these friendly gestures, members of Al Queda will turn its swords into plowshares.

I have news for the president: Al Queda chieftains aren’t sitting around the campfire discussing the fine points of U.S. constitutional law and whether the Bill of Rights should apply to a Nigerian who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit.

No, they have a single-minded focus on killing Americans, on planning the next attack. Obama’s constitutional law lectures are aimed at appeasing his leftist supporters here, not Al Queda. The only message we’re sending to Al Queda is: If you mastermind a terrorist plot from, say, Yemen, we’ll try to bomb you with a Predator and you’ll never know what hit you, but if you manage to slip into the United States, we’ll give you a lawyer, a bed and three squares a day. That’s some incentive system.

The president’s one-year anniversary is near. We’re past the point where he can blame everything that goes wrong on the Bush administration and take credit for everything that goes right. Obama oversees the Transportation Security Administration, which has failed to compile a reliable watch list. A division of the Department of Homeland Security, TSA has 60,000 employees – more than many Cabinet-level departments. At this point in 2010, Obama owns it. TSA’s failures are his administration’s failures.

Alan Jackson learned the hard way that the boy don’t always get the girl even though “tonight on that silver screen it’ll end like it should.” President Obama needs to learn, for our sake, that he can give Al Queda his love but it won’t be enough here in the real world.

The financial regulation bill cooked up by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the “Barney Bill,” offers a smorgasbord of bad policies that will affect every American. The Barney is yet another leg of the Giant Government Takeover of major industries pushed through the House this year. If your appetite for bigger government wasn’t satiated by the Car Takeover (GM and Chrysler), the Energy Takeover (cap and trade) or the Health Care Takeover, Barney has something designed just for you: The Financial System Takeover.

There are many reasons to oppose the financial regulatory overhaul bill on the floor this week, but the major reasons are that it will further tighten credit, allow bureaucrats to chop up U.S. businesses they deem “too big,” cost consumers more and kill jobs.

When I operated my own business as a builder, I had to face tough and sometimes scary risks. I might leverage all I could to buy $3 million to $5 million worth of land and then face borrowing millions more for building costs. If there was a demand for my product, I could profit handsomely. If I failed miserably, I might lose not only my business but also everything I needed to provide for my family. I couldn’t risk my business or my family’s prospects on the mere hope of profit. I had to study. I had to hedge my bets.

That common-sense business model appears to be the “old way.” A permanent bailout fund sends the bigwigs on Wall Street a dangerous message: Take risks without consequences. It’s the truism of bailouts: Heads Wall Street wins, tails taxpayers lose.

The permanent bailout fund will hold $150 billion, raised from financial institutions with assets of more of $50 billion. This tax will affect approximately 30 banks, hitting each for about $4.5 billion, even though the majority of them played no role in the financial crisis and pose no threat to the system. Barney and his buddies will say this is merely a tax on Big Business meant to protect the American consumer.

That line of thinking should provoke laughter. These banks won’t just absorb a $150 billion loss. They’ll pass this cost along to everybody who uses a bank through higher fees and other costs. It’ll also mean removing those billions out of the marketplace; in other words, banks won’t have that money to lend to small businesses looking to expand or to cover their payroll. GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee say a tax this size could reduce overall lending by $55 billion and cause the loss of as many as 450,000 jobs.

The Barney Bill would further restrict credit by implementing a “credit czar.” The credit czar would determine what lending practices are acceptable and which aren’t. This effort to help the “little guy” will end up preventing the “little guy” from ever getting a loan. If banks can’t charge higher risk borrowers more, they just simply won’t make the loan (or they’ll charge the low-risk borrower more.)

The irony of these big government policies put forth by the Democrats is that they end up hurting most the people they are originally intended to aid.

When the government picks winners and losers, everybody loses. We have to restore the power of capital in capitalism. Businesses must succeed on their own – or be allowed to fail. Instead of a permanent bailout fund, we need a plan that permanently ends the Bailout Era and restores personal responsibility in our free markets