Archive for the ‘Obama Bonehead’ Category
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2010
There was no plan. He didn’t try to sell anything – except how exceptional the feds’ reaction to the Gulf oil spill has been. He offered no solutions, presented no direction, said nothing specific, and even left the heart of the lib media scratching their collective scalps.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said, “I don’t sense executive command.”
His vinegary cohort, Keith Olbermann, ached, “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”
It was a brief – and frankly embarrassing – excursion into platitudinal hell. It was, in short, the worst speech ever given by President Barack Obama.
And it may be the worst speech ever delivered by a President from the Oval Office.
It is not possible to overstate it.
“Empty” doesn’t cover it. To say it was “lame” is an affront to the word.
And while Americans waited to hear something – anything – about how the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf would be tended to, what we got instead was wandering blather about clean energy, green jobs, energy-efficient windows, more federal commissions, higher taxes and his pledge to bully big oil. He promised an expansion of the federal government, yet again, and put forth the cockeyed message that the pain and suffering being felt by Americans in the Gulf region will be relieved with higher energy costs and a loss of jobs.
To begin with, thousands of oil rig jobs – along with the onshore jobs that support them – will remain “offline” because President Obama did not lift the moratorium on oil drilling. The policy will stay in effect until he hears a panel’s recommendations on how to improve worker safety and environmental protections.
The obvious result will be that the United States becomes increasingly more dependant on foreign oil at a time when this country needs oil the most. Ultimately, rig operators will have no choice but to move to friendlier waters.
How exactly this is better for the United States is unclear.
Secondly, President Obama vowed to “make BP pay” – something I’m sure he thought would knock it out of the park with the American people.
Despite his cartoonish posturing, the Bully-In-Chief cannot actually order a private company (British Petroleum, in this case) to put money into an escrow account, or tell them they cannot pay out dividends. That’s not exactly constitutional.
However, the President can – and certainly will – employ some creatively persuasive methods (i.e., big government intimidation) in his new domestic contingency operation against oil companies.
And although Obama never actually tried to peddle “Cap And Trade” or a “carbon tax” during the speech – as many had expected – he certainly did hit each of the anti-oil, big-windmill talking points we’ve all heard many times before.
He also talked about moving into the future, and creating the kind of America we want for our children, but then said he hadn’t any idea how it was going to happen or what it was going to look like.
Such clarity. Such leadership.
I am loathe to quote the regularly detestable Keith Olbermann, but he summed up the Obama performance this way: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”
Posted in Media, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Barack Obama, Gulf oil spill, Oval Office address | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010
I can assure you, I am fully appreciative of the magnitude of the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The repercussions, both environmentally and economically, are extremely serious. Even the President, some fifty-plus days after the explosion that killed eleven human beings on the Deepwater Horizon rig and triggered the oil spill, has had to suck it up and acknowledge that conditions on the ground justify that attention be diverted from him to the Gulf Coast. (It must be very difficult for him).
And with Barack Obama scheduled to speak from the Oval Office tonight on the situation – where the teleprompters are big and beautiful – poised to use the oil spill as a springboard into more government growth, the stage is set for thrills to make their way up a whole lot of mainstream media legs.
This will be leadership on full display.
This will be the moment for the young metrosexual from Chicago to lay his critics to waste and exert the kind of strength and eloquence (albeit almost two months late) that the media has been singing about around the campfire for three years.
This will be the political Viagra that will invigorate a flaccid and disappointing presidency.
But make no mistake about it … it doesn’t matter how many politically expedient, hyper-arrogant, camera-friendly promises Barack Obama makes, the Gulf region will recover from the oil spill in spite of him and his world class ineptitude. He can get up in front of all the cameras he wants and pretend to know how to lead, how to inspire, how to exude confidence, making promises about how the Gulf region will return to normal someday, but it means absolutely nothing. He might as well stand in a driving rain storm and promise that the sunshine will return.
Things will, indeed, return to normal, regardless of what he says or does.
This is not to minimize what’s happened there, but the Anointed One need not bother faking leadership or project some transparent façade of strength nearly two months after the fact; his image as a clueless, supremely detached, disconnected Golfer-In-Chief has long since been established.
Without question, the Gulf region will recover – without the blessings, assurances and soundbite-ready promises of politician Barack H. Obama.
Nature is funny that way.
The Earth, probably to the shock of many, has an uncanny capacity to heal herself, despite the screechings of the hysterical doomsayers of the world.
That’s not to suggest that the oil spill is not a big deal.
It obviously is.
The livelihoods of Americans are being aversely affected. The damage being done environmentally cannot be denied. It is an accident of monumental proportion that will be dealt with, even with Barack Obama in the White House.
But it is not the end of civilization as we know it. The day of environmental reckoning has not come. It is not even close to being on par with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as President Obama has suggested.
And if the President wants to sashay up to the cameras hoping to save face on a disastrous presidency – you might call it the Gulf oil spill of presidencies – and promise the American people that the Gulf will return to normal, let him.
Of course things will return to normal.
It will take time.
But it will have nothing to do with Barack Obama and his photo-op astroturf promises.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Barack Obama, Deepwater Horizon, Gulf oil spill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010
BP Chariman Carl-Henric Svanberg
He probably won’t be using a teleprompter (I say “probably”), but he may very well have a political Cyrano under the table prompting him. There may be crib notes stashed under the napkin or little post-its with bullet points taped to the bottom of the table for him to access. Either way, Captain Cue Card is on the case.
And not that there is any urgency fifty-three days after the fact, but the Oil Spill Summit between the man who vows to kick someone’s ass over this disaster – President Barack Obama – and the man who personifies evil more than any other human being that has ever drawn a breath (including Pauly Shore) – BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg – will finally take place … not today, not over the weekend, not on Monday, but next Wednesday.
The President already acts as if what is happening in the Gulf is an annoyance to him – a pain in the ass nuisance drawing precious attention away from him and toward oil-soaked pelicans and vanishing coast line – but like everything else this he does, it is a contrived, day-late/dollar-short measure meant to look like he’s doing something – anything – other than White House galas, golf and waffles.
BP Plc Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg is being summoned to Washington for a meeting with President Barack Obama as politicians step up pressure on the company to settle damage claims and suspend the dividend.
Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the government’s national incident commander, requested the June 16 meeting in a letter addressed to Svanberg at the company’s London headquarters yesterday. He asked for the chairman and other “appropriate” company representatives to meet with senior administration officials to discuss the company’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Allen said Obama will “participate in a portion” of the session.
That the President will participate in a “portion” of the session is a blessing to us all.
The meeting will be Obama’s first direct communication with BP representatives since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 people and triggered the spill. It also comes as some U.S. lawmakers are calling on BP to suspend its dividend to pay for cleanup and economic losses and questioning the integrity of the company’s public statements.
A sidebar: While in Brooklyn yesterday, I stopped to fill up my car at a BP station on Coney Island Avenue. Because I am an interactive type, I asked a man across from me who was self-serving his Chevy if he had a problem buying gas from BP because of the Gulf Oil Spill.
He said, “It’s a goddamn mess down there, but I need gas. I don’t give a shit where it comes from. When they invent a car with a windmill on it, let me know.”
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Barack Obama, BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, Oil Spill Summit | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 9, 2010
The number is: 19,600,000,000,000.
No, it isn’t the number of times President Barack Obama uses the word “I” or “me” during the course of the work day. It isn’t the amount of times Democrats blame George W. Bush for all that is wrong in any given week. It isn’t the amount of money being spent each month on dye for Paul McCartney’s hair.
It is what the national debt of the United States will be five years from now under Obamacratic rule.
The report that was sent to lawmakers Friday night with no fanfare said the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product would rise to 102 percent by 2015 from 93 percent this year.
“The president’s economic experts say a 1 percent increase in GDP can create almost 1 million jobs, and that 1 percent is what experts think we are losing because of the debt’s massive drag on our economy,” said Republican Representative Dave Camp, who publicized the report.
He was referring to recent testimony by University of Maryland Professor Carmen Reinhart to the bipartisan fiscal commission, which was created by President Barack Obama to recommend ways to reduce the deficit, which said debt topping 90 percent of GDP could slow economic growth.
The U.S. debt has grown rapidly with the economic downturn and government spending for the Wall Street bailout, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the economic stimulus. The rising debt is contributing to voter unrest ahead of the November congressional elections in which Republicans hope to regain control of Congress.
The total U.S. debt includes obligations to the Social Security retirement program and other government trust funds. The amount of debt held by investors, which include China and other countries as well as individuals and pension funds, will rise to an estimated $9.1 trillion this year from $7.5 trillion last year.
By 2015 the net public debt will rise to an estimated $14 trillion, with a ratio to GDP of 73 percent, the Treasury report said.
An exasperated blogger at Reuters, who goes by the name of johnchick, posted the following rhetorical question: “How can any Administration raise the debt by 20-30% in a couple years?”
To which another blogger responded with the following:
You should ask George Bush, Cause he was the first to do it. And he is largely the origin of the current fiscal mess that the U.S. is in. Bushie inherited a surplus from the Clinton Administration and quickly turned that into the largest yearly deficits that the U.S. has ever seen. And his Conservative ideology ruined the American Economy in the process.
The U.S. is now going the way of the DoDo.
And the world will be a better place for it.
To begin with, it’s an absolute riot to hear lefties complain about out-of-control federal spending. Most of them, given the chance, would spend more taxpayer dollars on big-government bailouts and stimulus packages. To a lefty, the failure of a liberal policy or initiative is tied directly to its funding.
George W. Bush, who might as well have been a drunken Democrat with the country’s checkbook, made no friends on the conservative side of the aisle when it came to government spending. By the time he left office in January of last year, he was able to put on his resume that he had presided over what was the biggest growth of federal spending in the nation’s history. Like all misguided Republicans, he failed because he embraced liberalism.
Right now, Barack Obama is on pace to make George Bush look like a veritable pinchfist. Obama is apparently determined to make America collapse under its own weight, just as is happening across Socialist Europe right now. At the current rate, America’s publicly held debt will hit an unbelievable 90% of the Gross Domestic Product in a decade. That would be the highest percentage since the Second World War.
The difference, however – and it is a significant one – is that the post-war economic boom contributed mightily to the dramatic fall of that debt-to-GDP ratio.
Today, it’s all about entitlements (i.e., what the government can do for you). Federal spending, as a percentage of the GDP, was nearly 25% last year – the highest in this nation’s history. (It’s projected to shoot up to near 26% this year). And even though President Bush did spend recklessly in terms of total dollars, during his first seven years in office, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was very consistent with all post-war administrations: ranging from 18.11% to 19.38%. (His final year, arguably his most fiscally liberal, it jumped to 20.65%)
It simply isn’t possible to tax ourselves out of the economic disaster that looms with Obama at the helm.
On paper, tax rates would have to be raised to economy-crushing, unheard of levels.
But in reality, no economy could survive such a thing.
It would be the end of America.
And that’s where we’re headed.
So, while no conservative will ever condone the ridiculous Democrat-like spending that went on during the Bush administration, the fact that revenues to the government did go up following the 2003 Bush tax cuts only reinforces the fact that conservative principals – when applied correctly – actually do work. Unfortunately for Bush, spending like a lib in conjunction with those tax cuts was akin to having two fully loaded double whoppers and cheese fires with a diet soda.
Libs cannot have it both ways.
If out-of-control government spending is deleterious to a healthy economy, then it doesn’t matter who is occupying the Oval Office when it happens. The argument that the economy can reach a point where the only way to cure the ills of out-of-control spending is with more out-of-control spending is Leftocrat doltism at its finest.
And let’s be perfectly clear, there was never a true surplus under President Bill Clinton.
Indeed, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but the numbers do not, in any way, back up such a claim.
For example, the surplus announced in 2000 – $230 billion – was really a nifty bookkeeping stunt. It was not a genuine surplus, because only the “public debt” was accounted for.
Remember, there are two components to the national debt: public debt – which includes such things as savings bonds and treasury bills – and intergovernmental holdings, which includes income tax revenues and governmental borrowing from itself.
During the last years of the Clinton administration, the public debt did go down, but intergovernmental debt increased by a greater amount.
Not once during Clinton’s time in office did the national debt decrease.
It is not possible, by definition, to have a surplus if the national debt keeps increasing.
First of all, the official Clinton “surplus” numbers, which can be seen here, via the Congressional Budget Office, are as follows:
Fiscal Year 1998 – $69.3 Billion surplus.
Fiscal Year 1999 – $125.6 Billion surplus.
Fiscal Year 2000 – $236.3 Billion surplus.
Please note that these very numbers were also reported by CNN.
Now, if you go to the Bureau of the Public Debt website, which is part of the United States Department of Treasury, you’ll find a link that reads “See the U.S. Public Debt To The Penny.” (You may need to scroll down a bit)
Once you click on that, you’ll be brought to page that gives you the current total national debt (divided into two subgroups: “Debt held by the Public” and “Intrgovernmental Holdings”) along with a search application that enables you to type in the dates of your choosing to see what the total national debt was on that given date.
The important thing to check are the FISCAL YEAR parameters. (The fiscal year always begins on October 1st and runs through the end of the following September).
For instance, if you type in “October 1, 1999″ in the first box and “September 30, 2000″ in the next box, you will be asking to see the total national debt figures for Fiscal Year 2000. You’ll note, after typing in those parameters, that if you scroll all the way to the bottom, the total debt held by the public at the end of Fiscal Year 2000 was “$3,405,303,490,221.20.” You’ll also notice that Intragovernmental Holdings total was “$2,268,874,719,665.66.”
These are official Department of Treasury numbers.
Adding those two numbers together gives you a grand total of “$5,674,178,209,886.86.”
That is what the total national debt was at the end of FISCAL YEAR 2000. The National Debt is thus calculated by adding the Public Debt and Intragovernmental Holdings together.
Compare the total public debt of FY2000 to that of FY1999.
President Clinton did technically pay down the PUBLIC NATIONAL DEBT from FY1999 to FY2000.
FY1999 PUBLIC DEBT: $3,636,104,594,501.81
FY2000 PUBLIC DEBT: $3,405,303,490,221.20
It was paid down by a total of $230,801,104,280.61 – amazingly close to the announced $236 Billion surplus for that year. But it was done so by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund (primarily) which ran a surplus that year. The Social Security Administration is required by law to buy government securities with its surpluses (convenient, isn’t it?). That money was thus used by the government to do its business without having to get it from the public. Hence, the public debt was “paid down.”
I fully concede the point that President Clinton paid down the PUBLIC debt, but not the national debt.
Unfortunately, that $230 Billion “pay down” does not take into account Intragovernmental Holdings, which is as much part of calculating surpluses and debts as the Public Debt is.
Intragovernmental Debt ROSE in FY2000.
That’s an increase of $248,708,412,534.04
The difference between how much of the public debt was paid down compared to the growth of the Intragovernmental debt was: – $17,907,308,253.43
That means FY2000 resulted in a true deficit of almost $18 Billion under Bill Clinton.
Granted, it is miniscule compared to the yearly deficits of the Bush years and what is waiting for us with the Obama regime, but it was not a surplus.
Those pesky facts.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, George W. Buah, National Debt, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: $19.6 trillion, "blame bush", Clinton surplus, Economy, national debt | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010
160,000 men landed on the beaches of Normandy on 6 June 1944 to take part in the greatest military campaign in all of human history. On that day, 2,500 Americans were killed. Nearly 2,000 Allied troops also lost their lives.
Five days later, the allies landed over 325,000 men on the beaches as part of “Operation Overlord.”
7,000 vessels – including over 1,200 combat ships and 4,100 landing ships – participated in “Operation Neptune.”
It was the decisive campaign of World War II, leading directly to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It literally changed the course of human history.
To this day, the beaches of Normandy are still known by their invasion names: Omaha, Juno, Utah, Gold and Sword. At historic locations such as Pointe du Hoc and Pegasus Bridge, there are memorials and museums. In Sainte-Mère-Église, there hangs a dummy paratrooper from the church spire.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000.
D-Day took place sixty-six years – plus one day – ago.
Survivors – heroes – of the D-Day invasion still exist.
And yesterday, the President of the United States, Barack Obama – the leader of the free world – didn’t even bother to take any time to acknowledge it.
Not a word.
No further comment necessary.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: 66th anniversary, Barack Obama, D-Day, Normandy | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010
When ObamaCare became the law of the land in February, the majority of Americans did not approve.
Not that it mattered.
Obamacrats knew what was best for the citizenry; and if you would have asked any one of them, they’d have told you so.
While conservatives, Republicans, tea-partiers and sane-minded Democrats (few as they were) unceasingly crunched the numbers to expose a sham of a plan that would all but bankrupt the United States – and ensure mediocre health care for practically all Americans – Democrats sidestepped the land mines of reality and transformed the debate from substantive to emotional.
As Republicans were going through the two-thousand page monstrosity to illustrate how destructive the bill would be to both the economy and the medical industry, Dems were ushering out some of America’s uninsured, presenting sob-story after sob-story, sad-sack tale after sad-sack tale, woe-begotten heartstring-tugger after heartstring-tugger, in an attempt to convince the American people that government-run mandatory health care was an absolute necessity before the bodies started to pile up.
Dems were countering cold-hard facts and analysis with syrup and schmaltz.
Ultimately, thanks to major Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – and some last-minute vote-buying – two thousand pages of vastly unread government control became law, contrary to the will of the American people.
Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.
Amazingly, Democrats truly believed that once ObamaCare cleared the final hurdle and officially hit the books, the American people – those cretins, those self-involved, unrefined, God-fixated, gun-loving ninnies – would turn their thinking around, see the wisdom in President Obama’s big-government vision, accept the price tag, and move on.
More than ever, the American people are opposed to ObamaCare – as well as everything else President Obama and his out-of-touch collection of retro-revolutionaries and college campus theorists have been doing.
Let’s summarize some of the highlights from Obama’s Big Book-O-Accomplishments: A Stimulus Bill that has done absolutely nothing except guarantee that money will be taken out of the pockets of the American people; an unemployment rate hovering at near 10%; a private sector that has all but stagnated while the number of government jobs increase; nonexistent leadership in the face of mounting international challenges (e.g., Iran, North Korea); the inability to do anything except deflect blame for everything wrong to the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the dangers of espousing moral equivalency (e.g, Israel and the Palestinians); the ineptitude and lack of leadership in not having the feds take control of the Gulf oil spill efforts; the capacity to transform the mightiest nation on the face of the Earth – the protector of goodness and liberty – into a bastion of weakness and appeasement; and his refusal to hear anything other than his own out-of-touch, arrogant brand of leftist crapola have all contributed to a Presidency that almost makes Jimmy Carter’s palatable.
Not only is President Obama turning out to be a gravely ineffective and embarrassingly incohesive, Americans now feel the first “post-partisan” President is anything but.
Of course, we all knew that by the Spring of 2008.
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:
One of the 2007-08 Obama presidential campaign’s changes that Americans believed in by the many millions was his oft-repeated promise to work with all sides no matter what and change the harsh political tone of Washington.
Good luck with that tired professed aspiration. George W. Bush promised the same thing a decade ago. That worked well for several minutes.
Well, Bush is gone and the majority parties have switched places. Now Democrats run the whole D.C. show.
And after almost 17 months of Democrat Obama’s White House administration, it appears Americans have given up on his promised bipartisanship, or even on less partisanship. It’s an impressive squandering of good will from his inaugural glow.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 61% of likely voters believe the nation’s capitol will see more, not less, partisanship during the next year. Which includes, of course, the unfolding midterm election campaigns leading up to Nov. 2.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post says that O just isn’t up to the job, writing:
The high point of his presidency came the day he took office. Since then, a majority of Americans has opposed virtually all his major policies and he has prevailed on several only because of large Democratic congressional advantages.
The problems are growing, but he’s not. If he were, we’d see green shoots of improvement.
Instead, the White House is going backwards at home and abroad and shows no ability to adjust. Like a cult, it interprets every reversal as proof of its righteousness and of others’ malignancy.
What started out as a whiff of rookie incompetence has become a suffocating odor. It’s hard to find a single area where Obama’s policies are a convincing success.
To be fair, one thing most Americans will probably be able to agree on is that Barack Obama is magnificent – unbeatable – as a campaigner. Indeed, he has been in campaign mode ever since announcing his candidacy for the Presidency a million years ago.
That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.
And with few exceptions, the lamestream media are still eating it up.
But many Americans – even those who rode the original Bam-o-licious disciple train – are growing tired of his baby-carrying, whistlestop schtick. Young girls just aren’t fainting anymore at his mere presence. And with each body of water he trods upon, Obama’s ankles are growing increasingly more wet.
The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.
Still, no one – and this is hardly debatable – can bow to foreign heads of state and dignitaries like our own Bam.
Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could give him a run for his money.
Secretary of Defense Gates taking a page from the Obama Appeasement Chronicles.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: "out of touch", Barack Obama, Big Government, Economy, leftist politics, liberal politics, Obamacare, post-partisan, stimulus bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010
Brian, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, posted a video clip from Barack Obama’s press conference earlier today in which the President did his best to convince the American people that his every waking moment is consumed with the Gulf oil spill. Reminiscent of the scene in The Caine Mutiny where Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) sits at the head of the table in the officer’s mess and tries to convince his shipmates that he isn’t a bad guy – that even his dog likes him – President Obama recounted the heart-wrenching, emotion-drenched interaction he had with his daughter this morning while he was shaving.
It was as relevant as it was tender – as plastic as it was nauseating, in a “listen-to-the-violins” sort of way – and it shed a revealing light on the Commander-In-Chief, the man of the people, the One.
Said the President:
And so my job right now is just to make sure that everyone in the Gulf understands this is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about: the spill. And it’s not just me, by the way. When I woke up this morning and I’m shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peaks in her head and she says, ‘Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?’”
If, after reading those words, you didn’t weep instantly, you have no soul.
And while Obama’s performance this afternoon conjured up a scene in a fifty-six year old movie for me, in Brian’s mind, it conjured up the words of another disastrous President bringing up the concerns of his daughter on the national stage.
Thirty years ago, it was Jimmy Carter, who said:
I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day before I came here, and I asked her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weapons.
If, after reading those words, you didn’t retroactively weep instantly, you have no soul.
By contrast, my own kids would probably be thought of as cold-blooded, heartless wads of selfish flesh since they’d be more likely to ask, “Did the President bankrupt the country yet, Daddy?”
“Will there be any money left in my paycheck for me to take home when I grow up and start working, Daddy?”
“What else is Obama going to take over, Papa?”
It’s interesting how Malia Obama asked her Dad if he plugged the hole.
“Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?”
To those paying attention, the answer, obviously, is “no.”
I heard both Janet Napolitano and Mrs. Obama speaking as recently as today.
(Feel free to insert your own punch line here).
Incidentally, it was gracious of the President of the United States to take the time to thank the literally thousands of people who have been working on trying to end the Gulf oil spill – everyone from first responders to engineers, from scientists to consultants – risking their lives, investing extraordinary amounts of time and energy, expending blood, sweat and tears to try and plug up the hole.
Oh wait …
Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "Did you plug the hole yet", Amy carter, Barack Obama, Gulf oil spill, Jimmy Carter, Malia Obama, Press Conference | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 6, 2010
Yesterday, as he celebrated Cinco De Mayo, President Barack Obama, in commenting on the new Arizona illegal-immigration law, took a page from the Race Baiters Illustrated Handbook and said the following:
The answer isn’t to undermine fundamental principles that define us as a nation. We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress. We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens and law-abiding immigrants into subjects of suspicion and abuse. We can’t divide the American people that way. That’s not the answer. That’s not who we are.
How ironic it is that those words should spring from the tongue (and teleprompter) of America’s foremost divider.
My question to Barack Obama would be: Mr. President, if the “immigrants,” as you call them, are here illegally – which is what we’re talking about here – how can they be law abiding?
The President is either completely ignorant of the law – and considering his extensive history of speaking before knowing, it wouldn’t be that much of a stretch – or he is flat out lying.
Either way, I must also ask: Precisely what defining “fundamental principles” are being undermined here? The state of Arizona acted as they did because President Barack Obama will not do what it is his Constitutional charge to do: defend the borders. Arizona, like many other states, is being inundated with illegals. Something had to be done.
And it was.
The majority of Americans think it was the right thing to do.
Contrary to Obama’s sloganeering, this nation is not defined by its indisposition to crack down on illegal aliens. This country is not characterized by its propensity to capitulate to whiny special interests who feel they are entitled to break our laws. America is not a more accommodating nation because of our failure (and unwillingness) to enforce illegal immigration statutes.
Yet, in Barack Obama’s world – a world where the word “illegal” and “immigrant” never appear in the same speech, let alone the same sentence – America’s core principles are somehow imperiled here.
Let’s be frank for a moment. No one – least of all illegal aliens (i.e., undocumented Democrats) – can possibly take our illegal immigration policies very seriously. How sincere can this nation really be about addressing this problem when we have sanctuary cities?
What is fundamental is the right of this nation to defend its sovereignty and protect all of its citizenry, regardless of creed, color, race, ethnicity and sex. (Yes libs, that includes Americans of Hispanic ancestry, too). It is simply inconceivable to me that the Commander-In-Chief President cannot – and will not – acknowledge this reality.
Then again, this is Barack Obama.
Also, what is the President talking about when he says that “we can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress”?
Does he realize how tenth-grade-debating-society he sounds? Does he understand how foolishly naïve and ridiculously uninformed he comes across as? He is as obtuse as he is liberal. (Redundant, I know).
Where exactly is this “singling out” happening? Where in this country are people being “singled out” because of what they look like? The preposterousness of the assertion cannot be overstated. The language of the Arizona law is very specific on this. It does not permit Arizona law enforcement officials to simply “single out” people based on looks or accents, despite the President’s race-baiting predications. It is profoundly irresponsible to say so.
Seeing as it is Barack Obama’s responsibility to make sure America’s borders are secure – and seeing as he has done nothing to do so – it is almost burlesque to hear him berate the state of Arizona for finally taking action. Then again, this President is the master at launching attacks against those who have the audacity – the balls, if you will – to oppose him.
How dare we.
Let’s be clear … again … no one is being picked up, stopped, questioned or incarcerated because of the melanin levels in their skin, the accent on their tongue or their style of apparel (although I’m happy to make a case for those teenage boys who can’t seem to pull up their pants).
I’m not sure how many ways it can be expressed, or how many times it must be repeated, but I’ll give it another go: This is not about Hispanics!
This is about entitled liberals wanting the federal government to promote a policy of sympathy toward a specific minority group, despite the law.
This is about the cheap and pugnacious desperation of race-baiting.
This is about an administration effectively saying “to hell with you” to its citizens while mollycoddling genuine lawbreakers.
The only people being subject to “suspicion” and “abuse,” as Bam puts it, are those to have the temerity to stand up and speak out against him (e.g., tea-partiers, talk-radio listeners, conservatives, etc.)
Posted in illegal immigration, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Arizona, Arizona immigration law, Barack Obama, illegal aliens, illegal immigration | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 1, 2010
In the absence of being able to piece together a coherent argument opposing Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, liberals have been reminding us that America is a nation of immigrants – that being opposed to immigration is akin to being opposed to America itself. New York Senator Chick Schumer recently recounted the famous words inscribed on the plaque at the Statue of Liberty – from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet “The New Colossus” – about the poor and tired huddled masses.
That’s all well and good, but like most things out of Schumer’s pie hole, it has substantively nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Libs, of course, have cornered the market in both intellectual dishonesty and selective disclosure, so for them, it isn’t necessary to make the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones. That would get in the way of a good sound bite. In libspeak, to be opposed to illegal immigration is to be opposed to all immigration – just like being opposed to the redefinition of marriage means hating gays, or being opposed to race-based quotas means hating minorities.
I’m anti-incest, but I don’t hate my sister.
Earlier today, the President of the United States spoke out against those – like me – who have voiced their dissent at the Obama administration and its Big-Government-Is-Better-For-Everything approach to running the country.
From Fox News:
President Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as “inherently bad” and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, “government is us.”
Obama used his commencement speech at the University of Michigan to respond to foes who portray government as oppressive and tyrannical — and to warn that overheated language can signal extremists that “perhaps violence is … justifiable.”
“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”
To begin with, no one on the right has ever said – or believes – government is inherently bad. I would invite any lib to point to one prominent Republican or conservative who has ever asserted, implied or hinted at the fact that government is inherently bad. It’s that familiar tactic, that old liberal chestnut – the “all immigration is bad” play – that keeps the Left thinking they’re intellectually up to snuff with the thinking class.
Rather, those of us on the right believe big government is inherently bad.
The Framers’ vision of limited government will suit me – and everyone else – just fine, thank you.
Second, isn’t it funny how opposing Obama somehow equates to a threat of violence? To stand up against Obamacratic policies cannot possibly be the result of liberty-loving Americans legitimately questioning and petitioning the actions of their government. To resist Barack Obama is to summon the demons that dwell in the deep recesses of the conservative soul – those that could be prone to violence, or incite others to it.
There is nothing “overheated” about defending liberty from the encroachment of big government.
Incidentally, by definition, “extremists” – regardless of what side of the aisle they are on – don’t need anything special to act as such.
They are extreme.
They are the ones who go against convention, regardless of tradition or institution. They are the ones who act outside of the mainstream. They are the radicals.
Kind of sounds like the current administration, doesn’t it?
Posted in Big Government, Obama Bonehead, Tea Party, Uncategorized | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Big Government, dissent, extremist, Tea Partiers, Tea Party Movemnet | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2010
It’s been played so much in recent times, handled by so many Obamacrats, that the race card must be nothing more than a mass of frayed wood pulp and lint by now.
From the party of tolerance, acceptance, character-over-color, unity, and plummeting poll numbers comes the latest appeal to potential voters, from none other than the Head Cheese himself.
Try to imagine, if you can, how fast the Reverend Al Sharpton would jettison himself from behind his cheeseburger to find the closest open microphone had a white Republican President, looking to garner support for an upcoming election, said: “It will be up to you to make sure the young people, Caucasians, folks of European descent, and men who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. It will be up to each of you to keep our nation moving forward, to keep working to fix Washington, to keep growing our economy, and to keep building a fairer, stronger and more just America.”
Arteries would be bursting in the necks of liberals everywhere.
The collective sound of millions of liberal conniptions would wake the dead and trigger seismograph activity across the globe.
It would be uglier than a surfboardless Keanu Reeves trying to act.
Thank God we don’t have to worry about such things. Thank God there is a Messiah “in da house.”
It is, once again, a Kumbaya liberal bringing all of America together (except those reluctant Limbaugh wing nuts) by breaking out that old tattered race card in the name of justice, fairness and whole lot of blah, blah, blah.
Everybody’s president has spoken.
And no, the Reverend Al Sharpton won’t be needed this time around.
And why not?
Because the President did not single out Caucasians. Instead, Obama appealed to African-Americans.
The President never mentioned “folks of European descent.” Rather, he kept his focus on Latinos.
And Obama did not reach out to men, God forbid. Instead, he was all about the female vote (i.e., the pro-abortion chicks).
Yes, the President of the United States actually said those words in a clip put out by the Democratic National Committee yesterday.
That’s because “fair” means singling out specific races and ethnicities. That’s because “just” means taxing the so-called “rich” – the job creators in this country – even more so that those who don’t earn it themselves can get it anyway. That’s because “stronger” means punishing those who succeed instead of trying to elevate those who haven’t (without handouts).
As Dems continue to do their best to label the Tea Party movement as “racist” and “angry” and “exclusionary,” it is the President himself who just cannot seem to free himself from his own skin-color and ethnicity fixation.
I humbly ask: Who exactly is the divider?
Has there ever been a man to occupy the Office of President of the United States (as well as the Office of President-Elect) who was less Presidential than he?
Hillary Clinton doesn’t count.
Posted in American culture, Obama Bonehead, politics, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee, DNC video, leftists, Liberalism, post-racial America, race-baiting, Racism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2010
“Disgust” isn’t even the right word anymore. I feel almost inadequate to the task of maintaining this blog because the appropriate words escape me. How many different ways can one express contempt at the way this administration does things? How many variations of a single theme can one articulate before it loses its effectiveness? How often can one say that he or she weeps for the future of this most magnificent nation before its impact becomes meaningless?
If Ronald Reagan saw America as the shining city on the hill, Barack Obama is erecting iron gates around that city.
If Ronald Reagan reminded us how splendid this nation of liberty is, Barack Obama is reinventing America as a nation of equality – the left’s most important value.
If Ronald Reagan believed in the power of the individual, Barack Obama believes in the power of government.
These days, a mere fifteen months into the Messianic Age, one cannot swing a dead beaver without smacking into yet another Barack Obama initiative meant to extend the reach of government into the private sector. With every turn, with every step, this President pushes for some new transformation – he uses the word “reform” – some new way for the heavy hand of government to involve itself in our lives.
Obamacrats hate the free market system, carry disdain for the Constitution, look down on Americans who voice dissent, believe they have a mandate to reshape this country into their Marxist-light soft tyranny, and operate with a degree of arrogance and detachment that is almost beyond comprehension.
Sure, I can use the word “disgust,” but it is utterly insufficient. Even armed with a thesaurus and a respectable way with words, it is difficult to accurately convey my repulsion at what this President is doing to the United States.
In two days, the Messiah-In-Chief will arrive in New York to deliver what will essentially be a verbal beat-down to Wall Street. His so-called “financial overhaul package” proposal will be yet another cavalcade of regulations and restrictions placed on the private sector – more government say-so in areas they have no business being involved in.
It is absolutely sickening.
During the Bush years, all we heard from the left is how totalitarian “W” was – that he was the anti-freedom President. All we heard was how he and his right-wing cronies wanted to run everything and control our lives. Swastikas accompanied Bush’s face on protest posters. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler were commonplace. And despite today’s round of phony righteousness from the left at how some people dare refer to the Obama administration as a “regime,” back in the day, mainstream media tongue-flappers used that word to describe the Bush administration, including MSNBC’s own beacon of saliva-projection, Chris Matthews.
Yet, what seems to elude leftocrats is the fact that, by definition, conservatism means less government, less involvement, less control. It is Barack Obama and his bureaucrat fat cats – and that is precisely what they are – who want to dip their stinky little fingers in everyone’s cup cake.
Where are the Bush-era freedom lovers now?
The answer: Barack Obama is on the bridge. Therefore, the narrative needed to change.
Under George W. Bush, the encroachment of conservative oppression and fascism needed to be fought off by freedom-conscious dissenters. Under Barack Obama, Bush-era cowboy-style, money-hungry, out-of-control capitalism needs to be tamed by the soothing and nurturing hands of government.
The “financial overhaul package” will hit the Senate floor this week.
Democrats, of course, say these “reforms” are essential.
Republicans, thus far, are unanimously opposed.
And just for kicks, here’s a tasty little wrinkle to the story: No one in the White House bothered to inform the Mayor of New York that the President was coming to his city on Thursday to essentially beat New York’s bread and butter into government-controlled submission.
Arrogance, thy name is Obama.
Maggie Haberman of the New York Post writes:
Mayor Bloomberg learned from reading about — not from the White House — that President Obama is heading to the Big Apple on Thursday to talk about Wall Street reform at Cooper Union.
“I just saw on the blogs this morning he was coming, so I haven’t talked to anyone in the White House,” Bloomberg told reporters.
As it happens, Bloomberg has an Earth Day event scheduled at the same time as Obama’s speech.
The whole thing suggests that City Hall wasn’t given a heads-up about the visit.
Bloomberg has been less than warm and fuzzy about the proposed Wall Street crackdown by the Obama administration — saying it could hurt the city disproportionately.
“There’s no [government] regulation that will ever match self-regulation if it’s done correctly,” Bloomberg told reporters. “Just because the government can never keep up with everything. These are complex worlds we live in. That’s not true only of finance. That’s true of everything the government regulates.”
I assure you, I am no fan of Mike “Screw The Term Limits” Bloomberg, but he is right in opposing Barack Obama on this one. The result of the Obama iron boot to the throat of America’s financial center will be a whole lot of corporations – whose tax dollars are essential to New York City’s, and ultimately America’s, well-being – saying “bye-bye” and finding other places to operate … perhaps outside of America.
And what perfect timing.
Just as it was announced that there has been fraud at big bad Goldman Sachs – one of those evil corporations hell-bent on crushing average Americans like me – the President coincidentally announced he would be going to the epicenter of Western capitalism, New York City, to tell them how badly Wall Street needs reform.
There are no coincidences in politics.
When it comes to the Goldman Sachs investigation, Bloomberg said, “My concern is for all the people who work on Wall Street. My concern is for our police officers and firefighters and teachers and everybody else. They get paid by the taxes the financial industry and many others, but to a great extent the financial industry, generates in this city.”
The next Obama “shovel-ready” project may be the burying of Wall Street.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Wall Street | Tagged: arrogant Obama, Barack Obama, Big Government, Cooper Union, Cooper's Union, financial overhaul package, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Wall Street | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 19, 2010
I thought Barack Obama was going to be the “Diplomacy President.”
I understand that erupting volcanoes can be a royal pain in the rump – particularly when the resulting plume of ash is effectively blanketing the entire European continent. And I understand that I, as a relatively unimportant, everyday-joe, pick-up-my-coffee-at-7-11 kind of guy, have no real concept of the rigors and demands that come with being the American president. Furthermore, I “get” that even the most powerful man in the world needs some time to extricate himself from the pressures and stresses of the job.
(See how I set that up so nicely?)
I also understand that common courtesy is something that seems to elude the young, strapping Chicago meterosexual occupying the White House – that is, unless you count bowing to foreign heads of state and insulting Americans who listen to Rush Limbaugh common courtesy.
Indeed, it was Mother Nature who helped the powers-that-be decide that President Obama could not fly to Poland to attend the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who was killed, along with his wife, Maria, and a slew of top Polish government officials, in a tragic plane crash nine days ago.
It goes without saying that Poland – a staunch ally of the United States – is in deep mourning.
Yet, with most of Europe still under a volcanic cloud, thanks to Iceland’s second major volcanic eruption in a month, the decision was made to cancel Obama’s trip there.
In principle, I have no problem with that. If that’s how it had to be, then so be it.
That ultimate decision, presumably, was up to the pilot and his crew.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also canceled due to the volcanic cloud.
Meanwhile, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev somehow made it from Moscow by plane, as did Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
With Obama’s cancellation, Sunday, it turned out, was a free day for him.
With nothing but a blank itinerary – and no new Rush Limbaugh programs to worry about for another twenty-four hours – the President decided that the best thing for a hard-working, over-worked, socialist-light Chief Executive to do was hit the links.
After all, since he would not going to the funeral anyway – and ultimately saving American’s critical tax dollars – what else was there for the man with the highest profile on planet earth to do?
Besides, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, along with the Vice-Buffoon, Joe Biden, already visited the Polish embassy to sign the book of condolences. Thus, by default, it was entirely unnecessary for the President of the United States to bother doing it himself.
Why waste what could be valuable time on the golf course giving a strong ally like Poland the common courtesy of personally acknowledging the death of their President?
Again, Sarkozy and Merkel cancelled their scheduled visits as well, but the Warsaw Business Journal commented that “there was no word as to whether they too had taken to the links.”
I understand it wasn’t Hugo Chavez or Kim-Jong-il who was killed, but the President should have at least made some sort of effort to personally offer his condolences on what was an otherwise lazy Sunday afternoon, don’t you think?
He could have at least ordered the weekend staff at the Polish embassy a pizza, or hired some illegals to bring them a hand-written note saying, “Sorry your President died. Love, BHO.”
Poland is a friend to the United States.
A cancelled plane trip does not alleviate the moral responsibility of this president to recognize that fact.
The entire world saw our President playing golf while Poland buried its President.
The Polish embassy is less than three miles from the White House. Seeing as he couldn’t attend the funeral, he could have done the next best thing – the right thing – by taking a quick jaunt up Connectucut Avenue to Florida Avenue to 16th Street to offer the Polish people his condolences. It would have been the classy move.
And it wouldn’t have taken very long at all. It wouldn’t have cut into his precious Sunday off. He would have been on his way to the golf course quicker than he could say , “I will be president of all the American people.”
It would have been the presidential thing to do.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Barack Obama, diplomatic incompetence, funeral, Iceland Volcano, Lech Kaczynski, Poland, Polish funeral, Polish president's funeral | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 16, 2010
Can we end this hallucinatory delusion that President Obama wants Democrats and Republicans to “come together” on anything? Can we toss that enchanted notion into the same receptacle as the “Pro-Life Democrat” and “post-partisan America”? When a big league leftist like Barack Obama says he wants people to “come together,” what he really means is that he wants Republicans to give in and come over to the Democrat side. The word “unity,” in Obama-speak, means everyone should think as he does.
For instance, a large portion of Americans are either part of, or sympathetic to, the Tea Party movement. These people have, without any national organization or leader, “unified” all across the country to speak out in opposition of Obama’s out of control growth of government – folks from all walks of life.
I’ve been to these rallies.
I’ve seen it first hand.
In the not so distant past, when dissent was as American as taking Betty Sue to the prom, Obamacrats would have applauded such a movement – provided the words “Bush lied” and “people died” were squeezed in somewhere. In those days, libs would have been the first to say that there is nothing more American than a wide-spread, coast-to-coast, non-violent grass roots movement by citizens with genuine concerns. Had it been a liberal movement, it would have been dubbed “a revolution.”
The President, however, doesn’t approve of that kind of unity. It’s not Obamacratic unity. And because it isn’t all about him, it isn’t real unity.
The man who is President of all these United States has cornered the market in a new kind of dismissive arrogance. In that head-tilting, superior-than-the-rest-of-us way of his – with a disapproval rating growing like caffeinated cancer cells – the Chief Executive has declared that the Tea Partiers should be thanking him.
Because he cut taxes, of course.
Erica Werner of the Associated Press writes:
President Barack Obama said Thursday he’s amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he’s cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.
“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he said.
At that, many in the crowd at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts stood and yelled, “Thank you!”
How dare the President of the United States ridicule average Americans with genuine grievances. It is the Constitutional right of every American to assemble and peacefully protest against the actions of their government, whether those petitioners be dope-smoking, insect-infested, anti-war hippie-types or flag-waving defenders of liberty.
Unfortunately, the reality is abundantly clear: When liberals do it, it’s an act of patriotism, but when conservatives do so, it’s right-wing hate-mongering.
This “unifier” has gone out of his way to openly deride those who have the nerve to oppose him. It’s his version of a hissy fit. It may not be technically unconstitutional for him to do so, but it is embarrassingly and incalculably inappropriate for the President to exercise such contempt for the citizenry of his own country by unabashedly scoffing at them for opposing his policies. It is tremendously unpresidential, immeasurably childish and divisive beyond words.
How dare the President look down his nose at those Americans who took part in yesterday’s Tax Day protests. The ObamaCare bill that just passed – without a single Republican vote – is a veritable smorgasbord of tax increases, is it not? At some point, that bill we be coming due.
For what, pray tell?
For alienating and insulting fellow Americans? For implementing a plan that will cost Americans – both living and yet-to-be-born – unheard of amounts of money? For increasing government spending to unsustainable levels? For peddling the largest chunk of political excrement anyone’s ever heard by telling Americans that adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls will not increase costs? For letting the Bush tax cuts expire – which, by definition, is a tax increase? For quadrupling the deficit in a year?
There’s just so much to choose from.
That sound you hear is Barack Obama’s far left base high-fiving each other.
Posted in Obama Bonehead, Taxes, Tea Party | Tagged: arrogant Obama, Barack Obama, Big Government, health care bill, Tax Day protest, Tea Parties, Tea Party protest | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 15, 2010
I understand that this is really an irrelevant point in the grand scheme of things. I “get” that there are an endless string of far more germane Obamacratic happenings that I could (and should) be spending my time analyzing and criticizing.
But I’m having a very difficult time keeping my disdain in check.
Or maybe I’m just in one of those nitpicky everything-Obama-does-pisses-me-off frames of mind.
Either way, I find this sort of thing so incredibly annoying … and profoundly unpresidential.
And while it is absolutely true that we have a President who exudes weakness to our enemies, turns a cold shoulder to our allies, has contempt for the free market, and believes that only government has the unique ability to solve problems (and should involve itself in every facet of American life), I find myself focusing on something entirely peripheral here. I find myself directing my attention toward the President’s propensity to speak like he’s chillin’ in front of the neighborhood bodega with his crew.
This bugs me.
This is my “fingers on a chalk board” moment.
Drew M., a regular blogger at the great Ace of Spades blog, posted a piece about the President and NASA, which is a good read in and of itself. As an aside, he wrote:
…(Obama) mentioned that Buzz Aldrin is ‘in the house’. Let me just say, I’m sick and tired of the President of the United States treating events as if they are comedy shows. “In the house” is a juvenile expression and simply an unworthy way to refer to these types of events.
“In the house?”
Is he kidding me?
What is this? The Astronaut Def Jam?
Was Joe Biden behind Obama with a turntable and headphones scratching out house beats, too?
When I read that, I had to peruse the transcript of the President’s comments today to see if I could come across any “Word to your mother” references, or “Yo, Buzz Dog” throw-ins.
Why doesn’t Barack Obama just break out his ATM card and use the corner of it as a toothpick ? Or stick his hands in his pants to adjust his shorts? Maybe a little gas passing at the podium with the microphone on could be added to the list of things Obama has done to make himself appear more like “one of us.”
This is his narcissism on grand display.
Everything is about him and how he is perceived. He doesn’t give a rat’s nostril about the Office of the Presidency. Whereas Ronald Reagan would never enter the Oval Office without wearing a tie, out of respect, Barack Obama kicks back and throws his shoes on the HMS Resolute desk.
The pomp and circumstance surrounding the office are annoyances to him. The traditions and customs associated with being Chief Exceutive are nothing but symbolic throwbacks to a darker and more hateful time.
Maybe he can get Wanda Sykes back to the White House for some of those cutting-edge comedy stylings. There are still some conservatives she hasn’t wished dead yet.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "in the house", Barack Obama, Buzz Aldrin, NASA, unpresidential | 3 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 13, 2010
He’s actually done it better before. There’s been a noticeable deterioration in his form since he presented the top of his head to Saudi royalty last year.
That was his finest hour.
Since then, he’s lagged a bit.
His performance for the Emperor of Japan, for example, was a bit fractured and forced; and for Pam Iorio, Mayor of Tampa, Florida, he seemed to be going through the motions.
He’s lost something.
I don’t know if it comes down to complacency, or simply a lack of practice, but President Obama doesn’t seem to be in touch with his submissive side as he once was. He just doesn’t acquiesce and exude weakness with the same verve and vigor he did in the early days of the Messianic Age.
He just doesn’t bow like he used to.
For those of the Kumbaya ilk, it’s understandibly troubling.
Don’t get me wrong. Those of us on the thinking end of the spectrum still understand that this President is the undisputed poster child for the new age of American weakness and appeasement. His policies are still a case study in how to relinquish superpower status without really trying.
But with his latest bow – this time to the Communist Chinese President – he seems to have some of the subservience that has defined him.
Frankly, it was a painfully weak bow – almost as if he wasn’t sure if he was going to go through with it. It was like he suddenly forgot how to peddle a bicycle, but remembered in the nick of time, just before he hit the mailbox.
It just didn’t have the same emasculating feel the bow to the Suadi king had.
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re going to embarrass your country (and yourself) by portraying utter submissiveness to a ChiCom, make it count. Bend all the way over. Let the Communist get a good look at those follicles. Offer to tongue-clean his shoes while you’re there. Get those babies as clear as glass by buffing them with an American flag.
Bammy’s definitely lost a step.
When a bonafide knee-pad leftist can’t even bend over and grab the ankles properly in the presence of a commie, you have to wonder what the world is coming to.
Now, THAT'S a bow
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: American weakness, Obama bow, Obama bowing, Obama bows to Chinese President | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 6, 2010
I already wrote, at length, about the President’s misguided and, frankly, infantile aspirations of a nuclear weapons free world in my piece “If We Could Just Get Rid of Those Blasted Nuclear Weapons…“
I won’t bother reiterating those arguments here.
I will, however, engage in a little head shaking – something that has become a habit since January 20, 2009 – at Barack Obama’s latest mystifying act as Commander In Chief.
With the eyes and ears of the entire world on him – including the enemies of the United States – the President has decided that his puerile, hacky-sack, dorm-room, raped-by-academia ambitions of a fuzzy-bunny-world trump the security of the country he is charged to preserve, protect and defend.
He has announced, inexplicably, that even if the United States is attacked biologically, chemically, or is crippled by a cyber-attack of some kind by a non-nuclear state that happens to be adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, she will not retaliate with nuclear weapons.
That way, one of the banes of all leftism – the disproportionate response – can be avoided, and America will finally be respected and loved throughout the world.
So, in other words, as long as the bad guys are not using nukes – instead keeping their destruction confined to, say, chemical weapons (like VX gas, for instance) – the enemy can rest assured that the United States will never tap into its mushroom cloud makers. In the mind of Barack Obama, a million dead Americans as a result of a biological attack would not be enough to justify a nuclear response.
That sound you hear are the enmies of America shaking with fear.
Or maybe they’re just laughing.
From the New York Times:
President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.
This is pure insanity.
There are no words to adequately depict the contempt I have for this man in context of his role as leader of the free world. I’d venture to say that it is certainly equal (at the very least) to the level of disdain he shows for his country and Constitution. That he is actually in charge of defending the United States of America is dumbfounding.
In Obama’s world, if Iran launches a chemical or biological attack on the United States, then the option to use nuclear weapons as a response suddenly becomes an acceptible one because they “violated the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation”
Is this man serious?
(This is the same thinking that yields the belief that coercive and aggressive interrogation of enemy combatants is an unnecessary tactic, except in a ticking time-bomb scenario with millions of innocent lives hanging in the balance, as Senator John McCain has suggested. If the tactic is useful in that situation to extract critical information, then wouldn’t it be useful at any time?)
So, President Obama, who by default is conceding that nuclear weapons are, in fact, this nation’s most powerful deterrent, would be punishing Iran for going nuclear? Not for the biological attack itself? And if a nation that doesn’t have nuclear weapons orchestrates the same type of attack, our response will be a more measured, thoughtful, considerate one?
Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.
I suppose there is a long list of instances where the enemy has looked upon America and said, “Damn, those Yanks are right. We’ve got to give up our evil ambitions and embrace peace. Look at what they’re doing over there. We’ve been fools!”
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.
Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
This is extraordinary.
How in the world does this make the United States safer?
Mr. President, there is nothing to fear when the good guys have the weapons.
Now let’s say it all together … Liberals cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: new nuclear policy, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, nuclear proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Prseident Obama, revamping American nuclear strategy | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010
The news today is that the President of the United States is set to “rewrite” America’s policy on nuclear weapons sometime next week. What that really means is the President has decided a weaker America is a more lovable America.
The immediate objective is to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal while refraining from developing new systems. The ultimate objective is to do away with nuclear weapons altogether.
From the Times of London, via Fox News:
After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Obama is expected to reject the doctrine on nuclear weapons — the “nuclear posture” — adopted by George W. Bush, which included the possibility of the United States launching an attack on a non-nuclear state.
In January, I commented on this painfully asinine, immeasurably naïve and potentially catastrophic approach to national security.
Because this is such an important issue – and because the commentary is timely – it is definitely worth revisiting:
The screeching unclean masses say that war is not the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. The socially conscious (and perpetually stoned) regale the world with chants of “give peace a chance,” but peace without victory only means the side of goodness has acquiesced for the time being. The President once said that the United States will extend its hand if the enemy is willing to unclench its fist – bend-overism at its best.
But such a gesture is not, and never can be, proffered from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The enemy exploits it.
Can there be anyone quite as naïve as a man – the most powerful man in the world, let’s say – thinking that a nuclear weapon-free world is not only something to aspire to, but something that is realistically attainable?
Liberals are almost adorable when they try to be serious. Unfortunately, the stakes are way too high for fun and games.
Why, first of all, is it at all desirable to do away with nuclear weapons given the realities of human existence? What, exactly, would such a feat accomplish? If the world is rid of them – which really means, if the West is rid of them – what then? Does the technology suddenly not exist?
That must be it.
Just like the “War on Terror” doesn’t seem so “George Bushy” if we simply call it an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” or Islamo-fascist terrorism don’t seem so pervasive if we call terrorists “isolated extremists,” the world will seem like a far better place if those nasty bombs are dismantled and filed away next to the aging surplus of pet rocks and mood rings.
Out of sight, out of mind wins the liberal day.
Regardless of the reasons, or the projected effects, or the feasibility, one of President Obama’s stated goals is to do away with all nuclear weapons. To children, dope smokers, tenured professors and MSNBC anchors, it all sounds so stone-cold groovy. No more nukes, baby! Whether or not the President will dispatch disciples to shove flowers into the rifle barrels of military personnel is unclear, but one thing is for certain: there are lots of fists that need unclenching, and lots of hugs just waiting to be shared.
And Obama is the man to make it happen.
To Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, this isn’t a values issue. It’s about the technology. Rather than focus on the ideologies and religious fanaticism that make these weapons a genuine threat to countries like the United States and Israel, the weapons themselves – along with the fact that the United States possesses so many of them – is really the problem.
Shall we all just pretend that such capabilities are make-believe? Will the world magically be safer when those blasted mushroom cloud making boom-booms go away? Is it reasonable to assume that the bad guys will then rethink what they’re doing when they see nations like the United States and Israel disarming?
The naivety and silliness of wishing to make the world a “nuclear weapon-free zone” cannot accurately be charted. Technology has not advanced that far. Childish wish-lists and theoretical gobbledygook contrived in the halls of academia have little to do with the real world.
Perhaps the better question is: why is it so desirable for the “good guys” to do away with them? What example are we trying to set? That the powerful shall not defend themselves? That only rogues, terrorists and despots shall have such weapons? This is akin to arguing with an anti-Second Amendment zealot who can never explain why weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are a bad thing.
The fact is, nuclear weapons exist because they must exist.
(“What?” ask libs, confused, confounded.)
Deadbolts and car alarms must exist because some people steal. Pepper spray and mace must exist because some people assault the innocent. Police must exist because some people do bad things.
It’s really quite simple.
And if countries that wish to “lead by example” do away with the most powerful weapons in their arsenals, knowing that evil does exist, they are as stupid and careless as someone who leaves the door to his or her home swinging wide open when they go out.
The world is in no danger with free nations in possession of these – or any – weapons.
If, for example, in a Barack Obama world of fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies, the United States and her allies were nuclear-weapon free, and a nuclear attack should take place in a city like New York or London or Tel-Aviv, then what? We should feel good that, at least, we stood by our principles?
In the real world, such cartoonish objectives aren’t rational, as Bammy is finding out.
Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:
President Obama’s ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.
Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.
The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as “spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented.”
What kind of deterrence is the President in favor of in a nuclear weapon-free world? Name calling? A threat not to have Obama’s hand extended to them? God forbid, sanctions?
The world shivers and shakes.
The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.
The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.
Also looming this year are other elements of Obama’s nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.
The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.
For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.
Indeed, the threat in a world with nuclear weapons is in who has them – which means it isn’t about the weapons at all, but rather the values of those who seek to possess them. That means the United States (i.e., the President) must be able to summon, with crystal-clear clarity, the courage to make judgments and, without equivocation, openly name the evils that threaten us.
For those who came in after the credits, I’ll repeat … there is no threat whatsoever when the good guys – yes, we are the good guys – possess nuclear weapons.
It’s all about values, values, values.
In other news, liberals still cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: arms control, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, phasing out nuclear weapons | 6 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 9, 2010
Not that it will matter, of course.
When do liberals ever pay attention to – or care – what the people they are charged to represent think? When do leftists ever concern themselves with the will of their constituencies?
The next time will be the first time.
Leftists know best – and they’ll tell you so.
When the electorate votes against the redefinition of marriage, for instance – which they have done each and every time it has been brought before the people – liberals immediately cry foul. Americans are stuck in the dark ages, they say. Angry God-types are poisoning the American bouillabaisse, they scream. Americans are nothing but bigoted, backwater, fag-hating pickup truck pilots, they screech. Protests, appeals, and rainbow flag waving inevitably pepper the map.
But it isn’t enough.
So, what do libs do?
They use leftist judges to magically find loopholes in the law so that they can bypass the brain-dead, hate-mongering electorate. It’s the only way to enact destructive leftist policies, and they know it.
Take the entire health care reform debacle as another example. Poll after poll shows that the American people categorically do not support ObamaCare. Most Americans abhor the idea of government meddling in things it has no right being involved in – especially something as important and personal as their health care. Yet, the President tells us he knows what’s best for all of us – and demands that we understand that. He believes this is his charge. This is his historic moment (as opposed to America’s). ObamaCare is such a good plan – so necessary for the American people – he’s asking Democrats to have “courage” to pass it.
Again, who cares what Americans want? Who cares that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care? Why relegate oneself to trying to implement some targeted improvements to what is already the best health delivery system in the world when one can transform the whole damn thing?
Welcome to the Messianic Age.
But it only gets better.
Take this example from Joseph Curl of the Washington Times:
A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.
The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.
On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.
Of course, none of this is surprising. None of it.
Apologizing on foreign soil and bowing to foreign heads of state can only go so far.
But will any of this matter to the President – our Commander In Chief? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what we the people think. It only matters what the rest of the world thinks.
This leftist polling company seems to concur.
Allow me the chance to educate them on two small points.
First, global acclaim is incalculably meaningless in rating an American President’s performance. His “citizen-of-the-world” status is irrelevant to national security. My rule of thumb has not changed: Whatever world opinion is on almost any given subject of relevance, go with the opposite.
Second, ever since the terrorist Yasser Arafat snagged the prize – and Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the world’s top “peace promoters” because of their work on the global warming hoax – the Nobel Peace Prize has about as much prestige as a colon polyp.
Democratic Corps, incidentally, was founded by Democratic talking head – and former Clinton adviser – James Carville along with Dem pollster, Stanley Greenberg.
The Third Way “calls itself ‘the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.’
A moderate progressive?
Posted in Foreign Policy, national security, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: America less respected in the world, arrogance, Barack Obama, Democracy Corps-Third Way poll, less respected, national security | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 1, 2010
I don’t doubt for a moment that billionaire George Soros is feeling a touch unsatisfied with the first thirteen months of the Messianic Age.
It hasn’t exactly been fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies.
For Soros – and other lefties – it’s been more like intestinal polyps and impacted molars.
For one, the banks were never nationalized. Soros desperately wanted it to happen.
Second, America never “unified” under the new boy Socialist king the way many had envisioned. Despite Bam’s wish to be the “great uniter,” it never materialized.
That’s because the “rest of us” – the thinking class – never bought into it.
And thank God for that.
The word “unity,” in a political context, is only a gimmick.
It is the most disingenuous word in politics.
What Soros really means is that more people didn’t fall in line with Obama’s liberal agenda. That’s really what “unity” means when a candidate says it, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from – getting everyone to think like he or she.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about “unity.” I’m a “clarity” guy.
Of course, America’s “disunity” is not really the fault of President Obama or his widely unpopular agenda, accoring to Soros. Yes, it take two to play pinochle, but it’s really the rest of us that are to blame.
“He wanted to be the great uniter and he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring it together. But the other side has absolutely no incentive to do it. So it takes two to tango. So that approach has failed.”
I have more of an incentive to lick my fingers after manually cleaning out the bathtub drain than “unite” in the lobby of Club Marxist.
It is no secret that most of the country – a significant majority – does not buy into the Obamacratic vision of nanny-statism and intrusive government.
But, like Howard Dean, he’s making the barren-brained mistake of thinking that what has happened in places like New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts – namely the ass-kicking of failed big-government liberals – is a sign from the electorate that those in power are not being liberal enough.
But Obama “got the message” when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, as Ted Kennedy’s successor, Soros said.
“I hope that, actually, now, he’s [Obama’s] taking the health care back to Congress and overcoming the filibuster — the 60 percent vote requirement,” Soros said. “I think that’s the right reaction. So he’s sort of taking a tough stance. And that may be the turning point. It depends on how he follows it up.”
It makes perfect sense.
The people of bluer-than-blue Massachusetts – liberalism’s uterus – were so behind the proposed government take over of 17% of the American economy that they elected someone who ran almost exclusively on being the “41st Republican,” namely Scott Brown.
Maybe the electorate was angry – furious, even – that Obama hadn’t proposed more of the economy being sucked up by the government.
Maybe this entire trend of toppling Democrats is America’s way of saying that they are sick of the free market, and if liberals can’t get the job done, they’re willing to punish America with a little infusion of liberty from the right.
At least Obama saved America from a deep recession or depression.
Seven billion jobs saved or created, I think the count is up to, as of this morning.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats, politics | Tagged: "unsatisfied", bipartisanship, George Soros, great unifier, Obama, post-partisan, Soros unsatisfied with Obama, unity | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2010
The approach here is akin to pushing down on the mound of overflowing garbage in the kitchen trash can to avoid having to take it out. With only slight manipulation, everything suddenly looks better … even though nothing has changed. Of course, that’s all that matters to today’s liberal: how things look.
Think of it as typical Democrat strategizing.
Keep this in mind as you read about the White House’s latest plan of action.
Earlier today, Salem Radio Network (SRN) News reported the following:
RICH THOMASON, ANCHOR: And with the President’s poll numbers down, and his agenda in trouble, the White House is fine tuning its media strategy.
GREG KLUSTON, REPORTER: White House aides say they’re adopting a more aggressive, more streamlined approach to getting out the President’s message. The strategy includes a faster, more direct response to criticism, and more events at which the President speaks directly to the public without the filter of the news media, such as town hall meetings and online discussions.
This is the same thinking that gives birth to the notion that if the word “cripple” is replaced with the phrase “physically challenged,” the reality somehow changes.
There are a multitude of reasons to fall over in fits of uncontrollable laughter over this story.
Leave it to leftists to once again believe that the rejection of liberal ideas is rooted in the fact that they’re either not getting their message out adequately, or a vast right-wing conspiracy is at play, diabolically deflecting the truth from the citizenry.
Here’s a little reality check: the President’s poll numbers are down – some would say subterranean – precisely because his message is coming through loud and clear to the American people.
Naturally, Barack Obama’s response to his failing presidency is to get more aggressive – to do more to get his Leftopia agenda out there to the people.
That, in and of itself, is mind boggling.
How such a thing could be physically possible is beyond human comprehension. This president is so overexposed – except, of course, when terrorists try to blow up airplanes in Detroit – that it is inconceivable he could actually become more aggressive.
God help us all if he does.
This is the man who once appeared on five Sunday shows on the same day to hawk his Marxist visions. This is the man who could single-handedly neutralize the national debt if he had a dollar for every time he used the word “I” and “me” in any given speech – including his now infamous commentary on the fall of the Berlin Wall last November, which he had nothing to do with, but managed to make himself the focal point of.
Keep in mind that the President has specified that he will do so without the “filter” of the news media diluting his message of hope and change. He’s going to win back the love he’s lost by circumventing the traitorous fourth estate and return to his community organizing roots (i.e., staying in full campaign mode).
The news media, liberal to their core, clearly are not be distributing the Obamacrat Kool-Aid packets effectively enough for Bam’s liking. They’ve obviously stumbled in his eyes. They’ve dropped the ball. Thus, he’s decided to sidestep them so that his message can really be heard – finally. To him, it’s been thirteen months of distortions, obstructionism and half-truths. How can he possibly get anything done if he can’t get his message out there?
He will be putting on his campaign trail shoes in the hopes of coming back down off the cross to dazzle the masses. It’ll be done through town hall meetings – which apparently are great vehicles for getting one’s message across (providing they’re leftist messages), unlike those blasted Tea Party types who are only interested in causing trouble – and online discussions.
And speaking of “online,” perhaps the White House might try a revamped version of their failed tattletale website from last year.
Remember that one? When the President asked citizens to snitch on other citizens who might have had dissenting opinions about ObamaCare?
If at first you don’t succeed …
Does the President realize how all of this sounds? Does he realize he is sticking a knife into the guts of the very saliva-dripping lapdogs who made him the Messiah he truly believes he is?
Again, in the eyes of Obamacrats, leftist policies are not the problem with the American people; it’s a noncompliant, unfair news media bending and twisting the realities of what the president is trying to do, coupled with a battalion of powerful right-wing, negro-haters who will obfuscate the truth to keep Obama from enjoying any successes whatsoever.
Dems are almost adorable when they try to do stuff.
Yeah, this’ll work fine.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Media, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats | Tagged: aggressive White House, Barack Obama, low favorability, low poll numbers, more aggressive Obama, new approach | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2010
Senator Jay Rockefeller
If there is a question to be asked, or a comment to be made, it isn’t about what Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, said about the President, but rather in what took him so long to say it – or should I say realize it.
It’s remarkable in that I haven’t seen this kind of open, in-party dissent and dissatisfaction in quite a long time – and certainly never with a Messiah steering the bus.
It’s bad enough for Bammy that with super majorities in both houses of Congress, he could not pass his signature piece of legislation – health care destruction – or his polar bear saving cap-and-trade bill.
It was a downright slap in the chops when Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, said no to a “bi-partisan” jobs bill that only hours earlier the White House had endorsed.
But when a member of your own party questions your truthfulness and reliability – and does so in an open forum for the whole world to hear – it ain’t good.
Frankly, it had to be said … and Rocky was the man to do it.
The subject was West Virginia coal.
Senator Rockefeller was in the process of questioning Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, over coal carbon emissions, pricing, and the White House’s overall position on the future of the coal industry:
ROCKEFELLER: The President has a little bit of money in for clean coal and CCS, but not much.
ORSZAG: $530 million.
ROCKEFELLER: I know. And what that is equal to is one power plant in West Virginia – it happens to be the largest one in the country – cutting out 17% of its emissions, reducing the carbon down to 10%.
So it really is like not anything at all.
So, what are my signals that I’m meant to read? … we met with him yesterday, and he said, “Oh I’m for, you know, clean coal.” Then he says it in speeches, but he doesn’t say it in here … And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to be not believable to me.
Isn’t that delicious? “He’s beginning to be not believable to me.”
Who says I don’t pat Democrats on the back?
What’s funny is Rockefeller’s use of the word “beginning.” Where has he been? Is the sodium pentathol drip wearing off?
I’m not sure what this says about the Senator’s ability to recognize and comprehend the obvious. He’s a Democrat, so sometimes it takes longer for the water to seep through the cracks.
I’ll take a “benefit of the doubt” out of petty cash.
But even more obvious than Obama’s unbelievability is the fact that the President has said, in no uncertain terms, that the coal industry must go, that he will bankrupt it.
“What I’ve said is we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anyone else’s out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, power plants that being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are placed, imposed every year. So, if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Remember that little gem from the glorious campaign days?
Rockefeller is a politician’s politician.
Think of all the inoffensive, cleverly-crafted, side-stepping, gently-worded ways the Senator could have said what he wanted to say without calling the Big Man less than believeable.
Posted in Democrats, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "beginning to not be believable to me", bankrupt the coal industry, Barack Obama, clean coal, coal, coal technology, Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 5, 2010
The English language can be flummoxing.
Some of its letters in certain situations can present significant challenges.
For instance, many of us are familiar with “silent e” (as in cape, vane and globe), but there are others that can be more perplexing, more troublesome.
One such example is the harrowing and sinister “silent p.”
They’re very tricky.
If your psychic has pneumonia, you know what I’m talking about.
I learned early in life how problematic they were watching everyone’s favorite Cuban band leader, Ricky Ricardo, stumble over the word “psychiatrist.”
I never forgot that.
Of course, the dreaded “silent p” is even more of a nuisance when it appears in the middle of a word.
Just ask the President of the United States.
The Harvard Law School alum, world-renowned orator, community organizer and civil rights attorney, must have been in the canteen the day they went over the “silent p” portion of his Language Arts workbook.
During yesterday’s National Prayer Breakfast, the President was lauding the efforts of relief workers in Haiti, and offered specific high praise for a Navy Corpsman. The silent “p” proved too much for the magne cum laude as he twice pronounced the word corpsman with the “p”.
As in “corpse, man.”
Messiahs are capable of many things, but to expect grammatical perfection is probably a bit much.
It’s that anti-Capitalist, anti-free market, pro-Marixst streak in him that is probably behind this gaffe. The word “corpsman” looks a lot like “corporation.”
We know he knows how to pronounce that word. Besides, teleprompters can’t whisper back.
Putting all in context, it’s not like he mispronounced the word “nuclear” or anything.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: corpsman, mispronounced corpsman, mispronounces corpsman, Nation Prayer Breakfast, Obama, Obama Gaffe | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2010
"It's yours." "No, it's yours."
It’s fairly common.
Talk radio hosts will field phone calls from liberal callers who, when asked to offer their take on President Obama’s skyrocketing deficit numbers, will inevitably, unfailingly, reflexively bring up George W. Bush. (I think it’s a law now). After all, as is made evident on a daily basis by this administration, there wasn’t anything in all of recorded human existence impervious to W’s gross mismanagement and downright destructiveness, particularly during the dark wilderness that defined America’s “BB” days (Before Barack). The inexpungible mark President Bush left on this nation was (and is) so ubiquitous, even eight disastrous years (God forbid) of Barack Obama can (and will) be overlooked by rational people, because no man – not even a Messiah – could ever hope to salvage anything from the splintered wreckage left by W.
Barack Obama’s budget, even by conservative estimates, will catapult America’s deficit to levels never seen before – and yet somehow, astoundingly, Democrats are talking about fiscal responsibility. It’s like a Weight Watchers class going out for chili dogs and cheeseburgers after the meeting.
And while this administration continues to count on the stupidity of the American public to buy into their “let’s spend our way out of debt” approach, they have no problem continuing to cite the deficits they inherited from George W. Bush when confronted with challenges to their own spend-and-more-spend agenda.
“Look at the hole Bush dug us into before we got here,” they say.
“You best look at what Bush did before you start pointing fingers this way,” they’ll exclaim.
But as political analysts Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write at Townhall.com, Obamacrats are not telling the whole truth.
President Obama was disingenuous when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.
As Joe Wilson said, “You lie.”
Here are the facts:
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on Oct.1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan, and $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
So what, pray tell, happened once The One set up shop in the White House?
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
It’s interesting to note that while the President continues to claim he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, he takes full credit for rescuing America’s financial institutions.
I admit to being quite impressed.
Being able to speak so well out of both sides of the mouth is no menial task.
It is the TARP money – $700 billion – that is credited with saving the banks, which is more than half of the deficit Obama says he inherited from Bush. To date, as Morris and McGann point out, $500 billion of that has been paid back.
It takes real talent to do what Obama does. He blames Bush for the deficit created by TARP, but takes credit for the results.
The fact is, President Obama is the proprietor and general manager of the largest deficit and largest budget on record – and no matter how many pins lefties keep sticking their little “W” dolls, it won’t change the fact that Obama owns it now.
It is all his.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", $1.3 trillion, $700 billion, deficit, Dick Morris, Eileen McGann, George W. Bush, Obama, TARP | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2010
I mean … I don’t really want to make a big deal out of this. On the whole, I’d much rather delve into more substantive issues. This is just too easy.
But isn’t this getting a little ridiculous already? Isn’t this propensity to bow when meeting someone gone a little overboard already? Hasn’t this entire new-age, metrosexual, compassionate, in-touch-with-his-feminie-side, bend-over-and-look-like-a-weakling thing run its course?
What is with all the bowing?
I honestly don’t get it.
Is it hard-wired in him? Did he get into the habit by bowing to his nightstand picture of Karl Marx every time he got up to pee when he was in college? Did he wake up in a daze and think he was overseas meeting some head of state? What on earth is going on?
First, the Saudi king gets a close-up of President Obama’s scalp. Then, it’s the emperor of Japan who gets a peak. But now, the mayor of Tampa, Florida?
I mean, come on … what is this already?
Why in hell would the mayor of Tampa, Florida – second-term Democrat, Pam Iorio – require a bow from the President of the United States?
My Lord … If the mayor of Tampa gets a full-fledged bow, I wonder what Michelle Obama gets when they wake up in the morning. A toe-licking? Armpit smooches? An ear-wax tongue cleansing?
Huge H/T to Weasel Zippers.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Obama bowing, Obama bows, President bows head to Tampa mayor, Tampa mayor | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010
Admittedly, I can be a bit demanding. In my everyday work, I expect a certain amount of competence from co-workers and associates while I always try and go above and beyond the call of duty for them and my customers. While I continually strive for professional excellence, I understand that as human beings we are all wont to make mistakes, misspeak, misinterpret and just flat out come across as dumb. It’s the way God created us – flawed, with the ability to make choices.
So be it.
However, there are basic standards in every field of endeavor – elementary prerequisites that a society-at-large can reasonably expect of those in a given field to possess. For instance, one would expect a physician to know basic biology, or a car mechanic to know how a crankshaft works, or an accountant to know how to use a spreadsheet. These are not unreasonable expectations. Likewise, my clients have reasonable professional expectations of me.
In the world of American politics, my expectations are almost nonexistent. For example, I do not expect liberals to make sense. I do not expect them to summon the tenets of common sense to make policy decisions. I never expect them to ask “what happens next?” I cannot be disappointed by them. And I certainly don’t expect them to interpret the Constitution correctly.
But it is not unreasonable to expect the President of the United States – who takes the oath to defend the Constitution – to know what is or isn’t in it. It seems even more reasonable to expect the Chief Executive to be familiar with the Constitution’s contents, given that he was a “constitutional lawyer” at the University of Chicago. (Note the quotation marks).
During his State of the Union address, President Obama made the claim the America finds its unity in its “incredible diversity.” I haven’t a clue what he means by that. That is not the same thing as E Pluribus Unum – out of many, one – which, definitionally, attributes America’s “unity” to its value system, not its makeup. It is wonderful that people from all corners of the globe come here … but they come because of America’s values, not because of their desire to transplant what they left behind here.
On Wednesday evening, the President said:
We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….
Indeed, all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The problem is that these poignant words are not found in the Constitution.
They come from the Declaration of Independence.
And no one at the Obamacratic round table – speech writer, advisor, yesman or lackey – caught it. No one.
I don’t recall the mainstream media bringing it up in their post-Bammy Chat analysis on Wednesday night.
As Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit put it: “And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech.”
It harkens back a couple of months when MSNBC blunderdoodle Rachel Maddow said it was the Declaration of Independence that had a preamble, not the Constitution.
The “All Men Are Created Equal” clause in the Constitution can be found just after the “Separation of Church And State” clause, just before the “Thou Shalt Not Be Offended” passage.
Posted in Constitution, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "All Men Are Created Equal", "Constitutional lawyer", Barack Obama, c, confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution, Constitution, Declaration Of Independence, E Pluribus Unum, State of the Union | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010
So, last night the White House taps the Justice Department on the shoulder and says, “You Know, J, I’ve been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that maybe we ought to take these 9/11 terror trials out of New York City and put them somewhere else. It might be the best thing for everyone. So, do me a favor, would you? Be a dear and look into possibly of getting us a new spot, okay? Thanks, hon!”
The New York Daily News reports:
The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.
“It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that’s too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood,” Bloomberg told reporters.
“There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City.”
State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.
Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was “pleased” that the administration is reconsidering the location of the trial.
Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke “with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives,” said the senator’s spokesman, Josh Vlasto.
It’s a shame the White House didn’t fully come to its senses and tell the Justice Department, “You Know, J, I’m fond of you and all – and you’ve done some great work for us in the past – but I really need to give this Khalid Shaikh Mohammed thing to the military boys. It’s really their gig. It’s a war thing, you know.”
Leaders have suggested other venues for the trial, such as the Military Academy at West Point or Stewart Air National Guard Base in upstate Newburgh.
Guantanamo Bay, I hear, has excellent facilities, including air conditioning, padded matresses, and toilets capable of flushing down entire books, if necessary.
Let us not forget that these terrorists already admitted their guilt and were more than prepared to accept their punishment. In fact, they asked for death. There was no problem whatsoever until the coddling hand of modern liberalism intervened. Now there are a whole lot of virgins up in heaven, sitting around, doing nothing.
This trial has no business being held in the very city that suffered the brunt of the damage on September 11, 2001 – nor does it have any business being held in Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, the Ozarks, Pumpkinpussville, or any civilian venue in the United States.
It was certainly nice of Mayor Mike Bloomberg to take a breather from his war on cigarettes, fatty oils and salt to actually do something that makes sense.
But the real question is: Who’s going to host this farce now that the Big Apple is saying, “no”?
Maybe a deal can be struck with Senator Ben Nelson for an Omaha show trial.
Posted in Justice System, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, Barack Obama, civilian trial for terrorists, Eric Holder, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mike Bloomberg, New York City terror trials | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010
Well, that didn’t take long.
I expected some sort of grace period. I thought there would, at least, be a reasonable amount of time allowed to pass before the President’s second face emerged. I would have guessed that Obamacrats would let the freshness of the President’s State of the Union words blur into our collective memories before diving back into the “politics as usual” pool.
That’ll teach me to have expectations.
Not twenty-four hours after President Obama castigated lobbyists in his State of the Union performance, saying that Washington needed to put an end to their “outsized influence,” guess who’s being invited into the Messianic inner circle with open arms?
Bob Cusak at The Hill writes:
A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union. The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”
The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.
The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.”
Another call … is on government reform and transparency.
The briefing on “government reform and transparency,” which was scheduled to happen earlier today, was not open to the public.
Frankly, lobbyists don’t concern me any more or any less than any other cog in the wheel of the Washington political contraption. It’s reality. Lobbyists serve their purpose as well as their masters. It is what it is. If I had a dollar for every time a politician was going to kick lobbyists to the curb, or do away with the “special interests,” I could pay off the deficit myself and have enough left over to buy waffles where the Obamas shop.
There is, however, the reality that this President is so far out of league and so out of touch – showing so much contempt for the American people and their ability to see right through him – that he absolutely has no concept of how to appear like he actually means what he says. Despite his raging metrosexuality, he would make a horrible woman because he simply hasn’t the ability to fake it. From saying his administration was lobbyist-free (when it provably wasn’t), to saying that the heavy influence of lobbyists on Washington politics would be a thing of the past – which is like saying the heavy influence of the sun on earth life would be a thing of the past – Barack Obama continues to act like he’s still halfway through his probationary period as a tour guide at Universal.
Why go through all the trouble of blasting lobbyists if you’re going to turn around and invite them to closed door meetings that the public is obviously going to find out about?
If, indeed, these “briefings” are taking place to let the K-Street crowd know that things are going to be different from now on in Washington – which they aren’t – why couldn’t the President have said something during his State of the Union like, “…And beginning tomorrow, the “outsized influence” of these lobbysists will come to an end as I usher in a new era of transparency with a series of briefings …”
He certainly could have handled it better – if not looking like a moonbat was on his docket.
And if these calls are not to serve the purpose of putting lobbyists in their place – and I don’t think there is an organism on the planet who believes that’s the case – then everything that came out of his mouth on the entire subject is a lie.
Not that it would surprise anyone.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, lobbyists, State of the Union Address, two-faced Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010
What kind of country does the President think we live in? To hear it from him, this is a nation of downtrodden, destitute bread-liners, without anything to look forward to except a benevolent government with a bosom warm enough to shelter them and a nipple large enough to feed them.
To listen to this arrogant disconnected President, one could only come to the conclusion that America is a tapestry of maltreated, exploited, disenfranchised victims.
I’ve got news for him: America is not a third world country. She is not a desperate nation attempting to feed a starving population. She hasn’t an antiquated infrastructure, nor is she saddled with nineteenth century medical care. We are not a nation in need of “hope.” I am sick of his depiction of the United States as a population of browbeaten, dejected weak-kneed whiners.
America can’t handle tough times, according to our President. We aren’t capable of toughing out whatever economic troubles are at hand. Instead, Bam is more than willing to spend unprecedented amounts of money that simply doesn’t exist to try and make it all okay now. He’s content to siphon more taxes from productive Americans as well as increase the burdens of future Americans – most of whom are yet unborn – so that this poor-little-baby generation can feel better today.
Since when has that ever been what America is all about?
I resent that my President has such a low regard for the American people. I despise the message he projects.
This isn’t a country of sad sack drifters and subjegated bread-crust collectors, as Bammy makes it sound. Rather, this is a nation of fed-up citizens who recognize that the coming of the Messianic Age has been an assault on their liberties and sensibilities. This is a nation that does not accept the notion that America’s salve and bandage is ever-expanding, cloak-and-dagger government. This is a nation tired of hearing about how the party in power knows better then they do.
Face it, the President’s performance last night was inelegant, priggish, and sounded like a metal wire might have been stabbing him in the crotch as he spoke. He seemed testy and sanctimonious. He was cliché-mad as he continued to speak about himself and blame President Bush for every wrong to befall the planet since taking office a year ago. He swore not to walk away from his health care reform push despite a nation that is decidedly against it. He swore not to pass on astronomical debt to future generations, despite the fact that he continues to propose hundreds of billions of dollars in expanded government initiatives. He promised the deficit would be cut, but his assumptions on what would have to happen for it to be so is more improbable than Harry Reid switching parties.
In short, he offered nothing – absolutely nothing – last night . .. except a whole lot of him.
Oh wait … and that bit about creating a debt commission.
A debt commission!
Is this the best he’s got?
The words “fox” and “henhouse” come to mind.
“Not that this administration – outside of me – has done anything to win your trust thus far, but I’m going to get a bunch of people together to put together a group of people to look into our debt situation. I can’t guarantee they’ll be tax cheats or Mao ehthusiasts, but they’ll be the very best that America has to offer.
Oh yeah, and George Bush likes to crush the necks of little, itty-bitty kittens…”
Why not just create the Department of Toto and Dorothy? It would be more productive.
The President defended every bit of failure in his first year with a whole lot of zilch, setting himself up for an equally sterile second year. For a man who said he was uninterested in relitigating the past, that’s pretty much what last night’s State of the Union was. He was painfully unpresidential and repulsively partisan. He even had the audacity to scold the Supreme Court for upholding the First Amendment.
Last night can be summed up as Barack Obama looking with contempt upon the American people asking, “Are you folks not listening to me? Do I have to explain this all again?”
Last night, he said he wouldn’t quit.
I wish he and his whole gang of prancing Obamacrats would.
Incidentally, how much Plaster of Paris did it take to fix Nancy Pelosi’s mouth in that “I have a pain in my colon” position?
Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Barck Obama, State of the Union Address | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
Actually, Barack Obama is very transparent. There’s really nothing cryptic or mysterious about him – except maybe his college transcripts. He is a floundering leftist without a single intelligible plan (other than punishing achievement and the free market), without a single accomplishment to speak of, and void of any sense of what it means to be Commander-In-Chief.
And those are his strengths.
His first year in office has been a case study in impotence and infirmity. Still, he is driven by an enormously overpowering, yet completely translucent, conceit. He’s grossly misread the American people, taking them for fools, assuming that his mere existence would be more than enough to push through his radical leftist agenda. But other than catapulting America’s deficits to unseen levels, he has nothing to show for his first year other than his flair for downplaying the importance of national security, and a record-setting number of rounds of golf.
President Obama knows that his big and bold plans for transforming America aren’t popular. He sees growing dissatisfaction and anger spreading across the country. But part of him truly cannot believe that his plummeting poll numbers have anything to do with him specifically. He is convinced the American people simply don’t grasp the reality of the situation (as he sees it), namely that he inherited so many catastrophic problems from his predecessor – perhaps the worst any President has ever inherited at anytime in history – that even his messianic skills aren’t sufficient to the task. Thus, he has abandoned his pie-in-the-sky, messianic aspirations (for now) and has fallen back into a posture of predictable, transparent desperation.
When all else fails, pull out the old standby: the anti-capitalist card.
Let’s get populist. Let’s go after greed:
Mike Allen at the Politico writes:
Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”. At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be “fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives.”
In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”
I hate to use a hackneyed phrase, but you cannot make this stuff up. Deficits have never been higher. Unemployment has gotten worse under this President. The President is on a course to spend this nation into near financial oblivion for generations to come – and wants to add to it with his proposed government takeover of health care – and yet, he whines and cries about Wall Street taking the money and running?
What? Is he serious?
Who takes more money out of the pockets of Americans than the federal government?
Yes, Americans want their money back – but not back in the hands of the unaccountable, irresponsible, expansion-happy feds. How dare Barack Obama talk about an era of “greed and irresponsibility” when it is our government, under Bam, spending and spending unheard of amounts of money, putting future generations on the hook.
Can anything be more transparent than big government liberalism and the games leftists play?
Sure, blame Wall Street. It’ll strike an emotional chord with those who have been raised to be class warriors – those weaned on modern liberalism’s teet. After all, it sounds good to go after big executives, CEOs, rich people and other selfish pinchfists. Go ahead and blame corporate America. It sounds so right to slam big companies. They don’t care about the “little guy.” They only care about fattening up their highly-paid cats at the common man’s expense. Why not blame greed itself? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Especially when a bend-over-and-grab-the-ankles-for-the-big-unions President says it.
At the rally for (candidate for Massachusetts Senator, Martha) Coakley, (President Obama) added: “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”
Good God, Mr. President, is that really the best you’ve got?
“Bankers have plenty?”
What is he? In an eighth grade debating class?
Blame money, capitalism, free markets, corporations, Wall Street or George W. Bush all you want, Bammy; you are the reason the Democrats are dissolving like a graham cracker in a bowl of milk … and the reason the next Senator from the State of Massachusetts will be the Republican, Scott Brown.
You’re damn right today’s election in Massachusetts is a referendum on this administration.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, greed, Obama transparency, Obama's new fee on big banks, Wall Street | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010
Sometimes, things just speak for themselves – like Hillary Clinton in a bathing suit or ketchup and jelly sandwiches. Sometimes the clever interjections and observations of even the most entertaining wordsmiths are unnecessary. Sometimes, things can just stand on their own.
Such is the case when a liberal fishwrap publishes commentary that asserts a mass murderer could win elective office over one of its own.
That’s when you know things aren’t so good in Honeymoon Haven.
The UK Guardian is as leftist as the management of the New York Mets baseball team is embarrassing. (If you don’t know baseball, trust me. If you do … right?)
Check out this web page:
Sure, George W. Bush was regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, but I don’t think even the most pot-soaked, sandal-wearing, maggot-infested, retro-hippie peace freak would have said that Hitler could beat him in an election … even with a Florida recount.
Posted in Elections, Everything Else, Obama Bonehead, politics, Polls | Tagged: Baracjk Obama, Charles, unpopular Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010
Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, Liar
Clarification time …
What is with this White House? Is it necessary to be dishonest about everything? Is it just an ideological reflex? Is it a biological preinclination? Do they think that no one has the capability to check these things?
I know Rush Limbaugh is under fire for supposedly suggesting that people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. This disgusting lie was proffered by the greatest White House Press Secretary the human race has ever had the privilege to know, Robert Gibbs. According to him, in every crisis, there are people who will say “really stupid things,” and this time, Limbaugh was one of them.
But it is blatantly, provably untrue.
Rush Limbaugh never said people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. It was never suggested, implied or even hinted. What Limbaugh did say, however, was that people who really want to see help extended to Haiti should send aid through private charities, churches, or any number of non-government entities which, as he pointed out, have always been far more efficient and far more successful in disaster relief efforts than the feds. Don’t count on government aid to do much of anything.
How on Earth can that be denied?
The inability of the federal government to handle finances with any degree of efficiency, accountability and responsibility also cannot be denied. This is an entity that has severely botched Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and has supposedly created or saved two million jobs – the overwhelming vast majority of which are government-based – by sending taxpayer dollars to phantom districts and zip codes.
And they’re to be trusted to handle disaster relief?
RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.
JUSTIN: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov —
JUSTIN: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and —
RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?
RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.
RUSH: Absolutely right.
JUSTIN: That’s the point.
RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.
JUSTIN: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was going to leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti with our church.
RUSH: That’s another point, too. Churches —
JUSTIN: No government money, Rush.
RUSH: Exactly right. Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it’s our fault. Reverend Wright, it’s our fault, there’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close. There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators and incompetent ones at that.
How is that unclear?
Where did Rush Limbaugh say that people should not give money to Haiti?
If people are genuinely moved to boost relief efforts, would they best be served to see their contributions (i.e., tax dollars) make it to Haiti via the United States federal government on their behalf? Is there anyone who believes that US Government donations wouldn’t be turned over directly to corrupt Haitian politicians and officials? Who will be held accountable for what happens to our tax dollars? Remember that Haiti was a man-made disaster before the earthquake flattened it. How much of the money filtered through the federal government would find its way into hungry politician pockets instead of the millions who really need it?
Despite Obamacrat thinking, Americans are the most generous people in the world. They will always come to the aid of those in need. The government need not siphon its citizens for unaccountable, mismanaged funds.
Recall yesterday, I wrote:
This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.
Note I said it is perfectly alright for the President to ask the people to donate to assist in relief efforts.
I never suggested the government was the right vehicle.
I did, however, say that Robert Gibbs was a liar. (Just reinforcing).
Posted in Natural Disaster, Obama Bonehead, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: "conservative blog", Haiti earthquake, Haitian disaster, relief efforts, Robert Gibba, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 10, 2010
When conservatives lash out against the most liberal president in the history of the nation, it isn’t exactly earth-shattering. While some arguments against the unprecedented growth of government, loss of liberty, accumulating debt and weakened national security may be more cogent than others, generally speaking, it’s hard to be incoherent when writing about – and rightfully criticizing – the radical transformations taking place under the Obamacrats.
It’s elementary stuff.
However, when dissent rises from the ranks of the mainstream media – default Messianic bedfellows – it can be earth shattering. When one of their own emerges from the refuge and aegis of the leftist womb to serve up some shredded Bammy, it’s tough to ignore. The reasons for his or her anger may be very different than that coming from conservatives, but they are no less relevant.
Enter CNN’s Jack Cafferty.
This has already made the rounds across the conservative blogosphere – and also on some liberal blogs – but I had to acknowledge it. I had to take the time to tip my hat to Cafferty. (Just saying that is uncomfortable).
If you’ve heard it already, it’s worth revisiting. If you haven’t – and you’re on the right side of things, literally and figuratively – it doesn’t get old.
Here’s what he had to say:
How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.
What a far cry from the election when then-candidate Obama pledged to “broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are.”
President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.
The head of C-Span wrote a letter: “Ask Congress to open all the important negotiations, including any Conference Committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.”
When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the administration would support televising the negotiations, he refused to answer – instead mumbling something about, “I haven’t seen the letter.”
That wasn’t the question, Mr. Gibbs. You either support openness or you don’t.
The Democrats insist this is all on the up-and-up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, “There’s never been a more open process for any legislation.”
This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming Speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
Here’s hoping some of the voters remember this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.
This is the same Jack Cafferty who said he will go to his grave believing that George W. Bush and Company are war criminals.
This video link from YouTube has had almost 350,000 hits in a little less than four days.
Posted in health care, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: C-Span, CNN, commentary, conference committe debates, government transparency, health care debates, health care reform, Jack cafferty, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
This is taken directly from the great Breitbart.tv website . It is the text of eight – count ‘em eight – different instances where the President of the United States said that negotiations on the health care bill would be televised for the entire nation to see. You recall, it was part of his promise of transparency, a new kind of relationahip and openness between the federal government and the citizens of the United States that would forever transform the presidency.
“..Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.” – CNN Debate, January 2008
“I would put my plan forward, and I would welcome input and say, ‘Here are my goals, reduce costs, increase quality, coverage for everybody. If you have better ideas, please present them.’ But these negotiations will be on C-Span. And so, the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” – San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2008
“I respect what the Clintons tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one really big mistake, and that is they took all their people, and all their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly. It’ll be on C-Span. It will be streaming over the Net. – Google Q and A, November 14, 2007
“We will have the negotiations televised on C-Span , so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Virginia Town Hall, August 28, 2008
“But here’s the thing … We’re going to do all these negotiations on C-Span, so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations.” – Ohio Town Hall, March 1, 2008
“Drug and insurance companies will have a seat at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every single chair. And we will have a public process for forming this plan. It’ll be televised on C-Span. I can’t guarantee it’ll be exciting, so not everybody’s going to be watching, but it will be transparent and accountable to the American people.” – Keene Sentinel, November 27, 2007
“So, the drug and the insurance companies who are still going to have a lot of power in Washington, and are still going to try and block reforms from taking place … so that’s why I’ve said, for example, I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-Span.” – St. Petersberg Times, May 2008
“So I put forward my plan, but what I’ll say is, look, if you have better ideas, I’m happy to listen to them. But all of this will be done on C-Span, in front of the public.” – Indiana Town Hall, April 25, 2008
You can see the video from which these quotes are transcribed here.
I blame George W. Bush.
One blogger at Breitbat.tv wrote the following:
“… It’s time the government tightens down on all of this “freedom” that you neocons have been screaming about and puts some money and assets in the hands of the less fortunate in this country and around the world. The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country. We need healthcare NOW and if Obama has to use a little secrecy to get us there then that’s okay. He will do what is best for us in the long run. Some may not like it now, but we will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people…”
Take a moment and re-read two of those lines. When you do, you’ll have a handle on modern liberalism:
“We will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people.”
“The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country.”
No further comment necessary.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, C-Span, eight campaign lies, health care debate, health care negotiations, health care reform, Obamacare, PelosiCare, ReidCare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.
It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.
At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.
I sincerely mean that.
To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.
It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.
No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.
I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.
It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.
As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.
How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”
This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.
Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”
Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”
Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?
Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?
How did that withdrawal work out for us?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?
Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?
What difference should it make?
Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?
Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.
And he is not kidding.
Welcome to “hope and change” national security.
what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?
One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?
Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?
Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?
Honestly, I don’t get it.
What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?
And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?
On second thought …
One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?
As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.
Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Al Qaeda recruitment tool, Barack Obama, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I can see it now … I can envision the Dancing Obamacrats explaining to the American people how this administration is proving that it is, indeed, the most open and transparent in this nation’s history. I can hear the leftist phlegm gurglers tell us how it is this President who has broken down the barriers that have separated the common citizen from the seats of power. This will be the most accountable administration ever, they told us. This will be the most open government we have ever seen, they said.
But is this what Barack Obama meant by a more open government?
Declassifying hundreds of millions of pages of Cold War-era documents? Reversing a national security decision made by George W. Bush? Figuring out how to keep more documents from being labeled “classified” in the future?
This is the transparency he spoke of?
The exposing of national secrets from other administrations?
From the Associated Press via CBS News:
President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered the federal government to rethink how it protects the nation’s secrets, in a move that was expected to declassify more than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents and curb the number of government records hidden from the public.
Among the changes is a requirement that every record be released eventually and that federal agencies review how and why they mark documents classified or deny the release of historical records. A National Declassification Center at the National Archives will be established to assist them and help clear a backlog of the Cold War records by Dec. 31, 2013.
Obama also reversed a decision by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn’t harm national security.
Advocates for a more open government are cautiously cheering the move.
In the spirit of openness, I suppose Mr. Obama’s college records will finally be made public at some point.
And so, the new era of open government and unprecedented accountability is upon us … Astronomical spending bills sped through Congress without scrutiny; Backroom deals, midnight votes and Christmas Eve rush jobs on unread, unposted legislation; Behind-closed-doors buy outs and pay offs … (feel free to add your own).
It’s good to know we’ve made it.
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: accountable government, Barack Obama, Cold-War era documents, declassified documents, National Declassification Center, national secrets, open government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?
If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).
Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.
For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.
Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.
Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.
These things matter.
It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.
Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”
Leadership, thy name is Obama.
William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called “Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:
Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”
The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”
In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?
For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?
All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.
The world does pay attention.
These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: attempted terrorist attack, Barack Obama, Northwest Flight 253, terrorism, weak foreign policy, weak presidency, William McGurn | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009
Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.
I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?
The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.
Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.
The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.
As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”
An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).
We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.
Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.
This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.
It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.
In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:
If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.
Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.
“Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”
Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?
The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.
Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?
We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.
So what? What does that mean exactly?
If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.
And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.
Another thank you to President Obama.
If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.
I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: detention center, Gitmo, Illinois, national security, Obama, terrorism, terrorists, Thomson Correctional facility, Thomson Illinois | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 14, 2009
Obviously, I wouldn’t expect the President of the United States – especially this one – to sit down in front of rolling cameras and say, “You know, Oprah, I’ve done a lousy job during my first year as President. My leftist ways are threatening to irreparably damage the greatest nation the world has ever known. I think I need to apologize to the American people, toss away my Saul Alinsky boxed set, and cuddle up with a copy of The Federalist.”
There will be prancing unicorns on the White House lawn first.
The President of the United States, whose humility is overshadowed only by his conservatism, spoke to Oprah Winfrey in a television interview that aired on ABC last evening, self-assessing his (almost) first year in the Oval Office.
When asked how he would grade his performance thus far, he gave himself a “good solid B-plus.”
The gash in my forehead from hitting it on the table when I fell out off my chair looks much better this morning.
I admittedly expected him to avoid giving an actual letter grade, seeing as even he would have to privately acknowledge that his accomplsihments in eleven months at the helm have amounted to squat. I expected a long-winded, smooth-sounding, substantively impotent answer, rife with political cliche and Democrat comma-speak.
He went with a B-plus.
A good solid one, at that.
From the Associated Press:
Speaking with fellow Chicagoan Oprah Winfrey, the president claimed progress on economic and international fronts.
Obama said the only thing that stands in the way of giving himself a better grade is the fact that some elements of his agenda — health care reform and putting more Americans to work — remain undone.
“The biggest burden on me right now is that economic growth has happened, but job growth has not happened,” Obama told Winfrey on the ABC special.
On the plus side, Obama said, “We are on our way out of Iraq.” And, he added, “I think we’ve got the best possible plan for Afghanistan.”
It was that double-digit unemployment that must have confused me. It was the weak international posturing prompting growing defiance from Iran and North Korea that befuddled me. It was the absolute failure of a $787 billion stimulus farce to stimulate anything – except in phantom districts and make-believe places – that had me thinking otherwise. It was his blaring silence as protestors were slaughtered by the government in Teheran that confounded me. It was his removal of missile defense in Eastern Europe that troubled me. It was his steady stream of apologies and atonement for his own country that was disconcerting. It was his plummeting poll numbers, and the mass exodus of independents stung with “buyer’s remorse” that must have thrown me.
And yes, he managed to once again blame the previous administration for whatever troubles America has today, saying that he inhereted the greatest set of challanges since Roosevelt, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, ishkabibble.
Outside of the billions and billions of jobs “saved” by the stimulus bill, what economic progress is Obama speaking of?
And other than bowing to international heads of state, a personal appearance to try and secure the Olympics for Chicago (a rousing success), and his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize (with a speech that made the side panel of a Cocoa Puffs box more engaging), what exactly has he done on the “international front?” Even the European press – no bastions of conservatism – are calling him a do-nothing, self-absorbed gasbag.
Incidentally, it is a source of great aggravation to hear the President laud the fact that “we are on our way out in Iraq” as a point of pride. Leaving Iraq is his great accomplishment – not America’s triumph over there.
It’s a B-plus, though.
It would have been an A-minus, he added, if he could have gotten 16% of the economy under his thumb … dammit.
In other news, the L.A. Times is reporting that the jobless rate for 20-24-year-old Americans is at 16% now – and rising.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: B Plus, Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 6, 2009
Just when you think you’ve had your share of “You can’t make this stuff up” moments from one administration, Obamacrats turn around and top themselves. Considering the dizzying array of bungles and stumbles that Bammy and friends have regaled us with for nearly eleven electrifying months, this one is near the top of the hit parade. The words “competency” and “Obama” have, indeed, been the strangest of bedfellows since the beginning of the Messianic Age, but if this wasn’t about national security – and the lives of those serving in America’s armed forces – this would be pure comedy gold.
Back on October 8th, in a meeting with Obamacrat advisers (via video link from Kabul), General Stanley McChrystal finally got his chance to offer administration officials his reccomendations on what needed to be done in Afghanistan. It wasn’t the official National Security Council meeting with President Obama, mind you – that wasn’t scheduled until the next day – but a kind of “dress rehearsal,” to quote a phrase.
Anne E. Kornblut, Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post explain what happened next:
McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review hastily compiled in February that led to Obama’s March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops over the spring and summer.
In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a PowerPoint slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”
“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of the participants asked.
On the face of it, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” (Defense Secretary Robert M.) Gates said, according to a participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”
But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.
“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what, in effect, the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’ ”
“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said (National Security Adviser James L.) Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what McChrystal created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”
So let’s get this straight … the general was given an assignment – “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population” – and arrived in Afghanistan in June intent on meeting that goal. It was a mission crafted and assigned by this administration. It was laid out in the March Strategic Implementation Plan. It was authored by the staff of the National Security Council.
But the Obamacrats around the table that day apparently forgot that, or didn’t know, or didn’t care, or figured no one’s memory would stretch all the way back to March.
It was their mission statement, and yet, one of them actually had to ask the general, “Is that really what you think your mission is?”
Dumb, dumber, Obamacrats.
One of my favorite George Costanza lines, from the Seinfeld program, keeps popping up in my head: “People this stupid shouldn’t be allowed to live.”
And then, to top it all off, Jones somehow seems dumbfounded – even astounded – that a general in the United States military, charged with the task of formulating war plans and leading soldiers in battle, would actually follow the orders he was given, saying, “Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent.”
What the hell was he supposed to take?
A vague interpretation of the intent?
A half-assed interpretation of the intent?
A lecture-hall and academia interpretation of the intent?
Do these people not know what the United States military does?
Isn’t James L. Jones a retired Marine Corps four-star general?
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Defeat the Taliban, General Stanley McChrystal, James L. Jones, Robert M. Gates, Secure the Population, Strategic Implementation Plan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
235 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan to date – 98 this year alone. Support for the war in Afghanistan continues to drop among Brits, and according to British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the reason can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.
In ten-plus months of stunning, history-book rewriting governance, it has become clear that unless one is a tyrant, a totalitarian or a terrorist, President Obama really isn’t all that interested in diplomacy. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that even an Obama patented classic groveling bow before Gordon Brown (or Sir Paul McCartney) could make things better between the two long-time allies.
While President Obama continued, even this week, to valiantly blame every thing wrong with America – including the war in Afghanistan – on eight years of George W. Bush, Ainsworth pointed his finger at Obama.
James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph write:
Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.
A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.
Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.
The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.
Some who have lauded Obama’s thoughtfulness and deliberateness in coming up with a plan of action for Afghanistan claim that those who criticize his “dithering” are ill-informed partisans hell-bent on finding fault with anything he does. Bammy supporters argue that additional troops would not have been available for deployment until January anyway (according to a “senior US defense official”) so the “dithering” issue is largely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.
But it’s a silly argument.
Whether or not troops are ready to deploy today has nothing to do with whether or not a course of action can be devised. Troop availability today has no bearing on whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces can formulate a war strategy.
The argument isn’t even logical.
For example, people regularly make plans and devise strategies for their futures by setting goals (buying a house, a car, saving for a child’s education, etc.), and almost always when the funds to make those goals a reality are not in hand.
Considering the speed with which the President embarked on his multi-trillion dollar spending sprees, it’s difficult to lend legitimacy to the “Obama is just being contemplative” argument. After all, the President is obviously more than willing to increase government spending to unprecedented levels without having the funds “in hand” to do so.
So, if troops were ready to deploy today, President Obama would have already come up with a plan?
Anyone who believes that, stand on his head.
All deployments take time to organize. All battle plans need preparation. Military commanders have already hinted that it could take several months to get new troops in the pipeline. But the plan must first exist.
There is nothing in waiting months and months to announce a strategy that bodes well for Obama on this score.
And if, for the sake of argument, Obama’s dithering actually was based on the fact that additional troops would not be available until January, wouldn’t he – or any of his dancing Obamacrats – have cited it endlessly it as a reason for the prolonged delay? Wouldn’t the mainstream media, ever quick to give the President the benefit of any doubt, have beaten that excuse to death by now?
Ten months in, and everything is still George W. Bush’s fault.
It isn’t as if Obama is averse to passing the buck … or bowing to it.
Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.
Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.
He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.
“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.
“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”
The President is having a difficult time convincing anybody that he takes the war in Afghanistan seriously.
Ainsworth – the first British minister to publicly speak up against Obama’s turtle-paced approach to prosecuting the war – is clearly not happy.
A set of holiday DVDs presented in a festive gift case ought to put him straight.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan war strategy, Bob Ainsworth, General McChrystal, Obama, Obama dithering, Obama war decision | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009
Someone ought to get MSNBC’S Chris Matthews a towel … or a cigarette. His incessant gushing over everything the President does and says is going to leave a nasty stain on the carpet. Perhaps a sedative, or one of Keith Olbermann’s famous back rubs, would help. That Matthews’ legs have not been rendered lame from all of the thrills running up them is, in a word, miraculous. If he hasn’t already had an accident on the set, it’s only a matter of time.
Indeed, his viewership may be the only thing dropping quicker than the President’s poll numbers – or the New York Jets’ season – but every once in a while, Matthews can offer a unique touch of insight.
And so it was that on his show Hardball – yes, it is still on the air – Chris Matthews offered an actual criticism of Barack Obama.
With the President’s poll numbers falling off the table, Matthews asked his viewer(s) to consider the possibility that President Obama is just too smart for his own good.
President Obama has his chin out there on just about every hot issue out there: health care, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese Emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? Who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City?
Yes, of course.
It should have been obvious, but I chose not to see it. My ideological blinders have kept me from weighing the possibility that the rest of us are simply not cerebral enough to keep up with him.
He is that He is.
Barack Obama is too much of an intellectual. It is his “eggheadedness” that has caused his numbers to slip. You can hardly blame him for not being able to mingle academically with the non-water walkers of America.
Matthews, again, leads the way.
Incidentally, the answers to Matthews’ questions are, in order:
– Not in your wildest dreams.
– Only if he dips his face into a quiche.
– Because, as a liberal, his goal is to present America as weak and vulnerable.
– Because his ability to pick friends, mentors and associates of character is on par with his ability speak coherently free of teleprompters.
– Because once he does, he owns it, and he can’t use George W. Bush as an excuse any longer – although, he will.
– Only those people who can never, ever, ever, ever, ever be trusted with national security – liberals.
Posted in Media, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Chris Matthews, falling poll numbers, Hardball, Obama, politics, Too Intellectual, Too Much of an Egghead | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
The President of the United States – with his nation at war – will not take any decisions on what course of action he will pursue in regard to the war in Afghanistan until after Thanksgiving.
A couple of days ago, in fact, the President said it could take several weeks before he comes up with something. No one is exactly sure what other nuggets of information need to be revealed to him before he can finally announce a plan of action there, but he said he will surely let us know.
How nice of him.
While his do-nothing Asian excursion produced no more than a few exceedingly uninteresting moments (except the bow, of course), the war in Afghanistan – being fought by real live Americans deserving of far more than the secondary and tertiary consideration they’re getting from this administration – continued its hapless flap in the political breeze. Indeed, President Obama looked good yesterday telling 1,500 military personnel on Osan Air Base that they made a “pretty good photo op,” but ultimately that’s all it was – a photo op.
There just wasn’t a whole hell of alot that was “presidential” about his visit.
The truth is, the President refuses to own this war, and as long as he can continue to take his cues from the Pathetic President’s Songbook and tie the name of George W. Bush to Afghanistan, he will.
It is sad to say so, but there isn’t an ounce of strength or assuredness coming from this man. The rest of the world sees it. America’s enemies embrace it. America’s troops are the ones paying for it.
With continued indecision comes a real cost – anxious allies, emboldened enemies, and a growing likelihood that Congressional Democrats will feel less inclined to fully back the war effort.
The President himself seems indifferent on the matter.
Yet, Obama’s passions are real. They do exist. Unfortunately, they’re not stirred by his desire to win in Afghanistan. They’re not summoned in his steadfast leadership in the war effort. In fact, he looks mostly lost and discombobulated in his role as Commander-in-Chief. Rather, what arouses him is his annoyance at being asked yet again when he plans to make a decision on Afghanistan; or the fact that from somewhere in his administration, information regarding his deliberations on Afghanistan are leaking out.
Posted in Afghanistan, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Afghanistan policy, Obama decision, War in Afghanistan, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009
The Governor of New York and the President of the United States aren’t exactly tight. While they are both big time Democrats who hail from big blue states, they seem to have about as much affection for each other as a gaping flesh wound has for salt.
The President, for instance, has all but asked Paterson to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and the Governor has all but told him to take a flying leap off a high ledge.
That’s how they play together.
The decision by the Obama administration to bring terrorists to New York to stand trial has only widened the gap between them.
While most Democrats seem to be in favor of Attorney General Eric Holder’s (i.e., President Obama’s) disastrous decision to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tried in a civilian court with four of his terrorist chums, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, doesn’t like the idea one bit.
For once, I agree with the otherwise useless governor of my state.
Marcia Kramer from WCBS-TV in New York writes:
Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.
“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.
Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.
“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”
Paterson went on to say that “he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”
As difficult as this is to say definitively, considering the cavalcade of harm President Obama has already overseen since taking office ten months ago, this decision to bring war criminals to New York to be tried as civilians may very be the most disastrous of all.
More importantly, this is a very bad move for the United States. Treating war criminals like civilians, who will potentially have access to intelligence data and Bush-era policy information, is a calamity waiting to happen. It will also afford these examples of human excrement a forum from which to disgorge their hateful prattle.
As it stands right now, nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe this is a bad idea – that a military court is the place to try these war makers who have already asked to be put to death.
The first noise you hear is the gentle sound of terrorist laughter wafting across the oceans into New York, where that great big hole in the ground still sits.
That other sound you hear is Obama’s base collectively gnawing on that great big bone he threw them.
Posted in Evil, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, Barack Obama, civilian trial, David Paterson, Eric Holder, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, New York trial, terrorism, terrorist trial | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
Can they stop badgering him with these incessant questions about Afghanistan? Is there nothing else to talk about? Do these mainstream media one-trick ponies realize the war there is not the only topic on planet Earth? Do they not understand that their one-dimensional appraoch to journalism is going to irritate the big man to no end if they keep pestering him about it?
It must be incredibly difficult for President Barack Obama to have to deal with persistent nagging from belligerent elements of the press corps (no doubt Limbuagh-dispatched insurgents) about his plans for Afghanistan when there are other matters to tend to, such as how good he looks and how cool he sounds. It must baffle him to no end trying to figure out how the right-wing managed to infiltrate the mainstream media. Who else but they would keep hassling him about this? A trip to Asia is no place to discuss foreign policy, especially when there are heads of state yet to bow to, apologies yet to be made, and American soldiers in harm’s way yet to blow off.
In Shanghai yesterday, the President’s panties were, indeed, in a twist as yet another tedious inquiry about Afghanistan came at him.
Mike Allen, at Politico, writes:
President Barack Obama made no effort to conceal his irritation when his press corps used the first question of his maiden Far East trip to ask what was taking him so long on Afghanistan.
Jennifer Loven of The Associated Press had asked: “Can you explain to people watching and criticizing your deliberations what piece of information you’re still lacking to make that call.”
“With respect to Afghanistan, Jennifer,” the president scolded, “I don’t think this is a matter of some datum of information that I’m waiting on. … Critics of the process … tend not to be folks who … are directly involved in what’s happening in Afghanistan. Those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation and recognize the importance of us getting this right.”
The cool president’s heated response reflected second-guessing from the press and Pentagon about a process that has spanned eight formal meetings with his war cabinet, totaling about 20 hours.
The White House has been deliberately portraying the process as thorough, emphasizing the opposing views the president has considered, as a way of positing a contrast with President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
How exasperating it must be for Barack H. Obama. The press is so captivated, so bedeviled, with the damn war, they’re completely missing these golden presidential photo opportunities. Does the press corps ever think of anything besides itself?
David Alexrod, White House senior advisor, blames this obsession with trying to get Obama to act presidential and take a decision about Afghanistan as a symptom of the “A.D.D. policial culture.”
Yeah, it’s us.
Where was this “thorough” deliberation process when the monumental failure known as the Stimulus Bill became the law of the land in about thirteen nanoseconds?
The fact is, Afghanistan – like everything else with Barack OBama – is still all about George W. Bush.
Obama knows that the moment any kind of decision on Afghanistan is taken, the war becomes his. And the moment he owns it, he can no portray himself as a victim.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan, Barack Obama, China trip, David Alexrod, Troops in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 15, 2009
Remember how critical it was that Congress pass the Stimulus Bill? Remember how vital it was for the country’s well-being? Remember how its passage was essential to preserve America’s very existence? There wasn’t a moment to waste. It was so urgent, by golly, that there wouldn’t even enough time for anyone to sit down read the thing. Action had to be taken as soon as humanly possible, lest disaster strike. The United States, after all, was on the brink of complete and utter collapse.
Remember how quickly President Obama announced that he’d be shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba after taking the Oath of Office? His inaugural waffle hadn’t even gotten cold yet before he was telling the world that the splendidly effective, incredibly efficient, perfectly secure terrorist prison would have to be shut down. Mind you, Obama had no alternate plan for the terrorists, nor was he ever able to convey a coherent reason for closing the facility. Nonetheless, he acted swiftly.
Remember when the President said, in regard to the threat of global warming, that “the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”? Remember how he explained that “few challenges facing America — and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change”? Without a shred of evidence anywhere to support the hysterical belief that increasing CO2 levels are killing the Earth – and with thousands and thousands of years of evidence showing that climate does, in fact, change of its own accord – Obama didn’t spare a second beginning his full frontal assult on “climate change.”
He can be an impulsive bugger at times.
Obama wasted no time in facilitating the government takeover of auto makers. He didn’t hesitate to put the kibosh on the Eastern European missile defense shield. He thought nothing of saying that a recession was the wrong time for corporate profits. He was (and still is) quick to apologize for his own nation on foreign soil. Without a moment’s dithering, he was postive he couldn’t be sure when human life begins, yet knew enough to err on the side of killing the unborn. He was quick to condemn the Cambridge Massachusetts Police Department for “stupidly” handling the arrest of his race-obsessed friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, without knowing the facts. He has instinctively rolled over for Iran, while alienating America’s allies.
And let us not forget ObamaCare.
In the mere blink of an eye he is prepared to create the most astronomicaly crippling debt this, or any other, nation has ever seen. Without as much as a batting eyelash, he is more than ready to saddle generation after generation with tax burdens unheard of in American history. Without breaking a sweat, he is eager to expand the federal government to levels that would have garnered a tip of the hat from FDR.
And yet …
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan – the fight he called the “war of necessity” – he just can’t seem to figure it out. Despite months and months to come up with a plan of action for what he said repeatedly was the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda, he just doesn’t know. Despite recommendations from the best military minds in the world, he just can’t seem find it in himself to do much of anything but wait. With American soldiers in harm’s way waiting for their Commander-in-Chief to finally act the part, President Obama says he wants to take it slow and come up with the best solution. So far, he’s rejected all proposed plans up to this point.
What the hell?
Afghanistan was Obama’s easy call, remember? This was the fight that America needed to be focused on all along, right? This was the “good war,” wasn’t it?
And yet, less than two weeks away from Thanksgiving, still nothing.
These things can’t be rushed, he says.
Anyway, enjoy Asia, Mr. President.
How many trips does that make since January?
Posted in Global Warming, health care, Junk Science, Liberalism, military, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Barack Obama, Obama dithering, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 15, 2009
No, he’s not trying to steal a peak at a shoe-top teleprompter, nor is he offering the Emperor of Japan a closer look at his cool hair cut.
Yes, I know photos of this moment are making the rounds in cyberspace this weekend, as they ought to be.
People need to take a good look at this image.
Frankly, there really isn’t a whole heck of a lot I could say or add that hasn’t been done elsewhere far more eloquently or cleverly than I could.
The fact is, the President of the United States – this country’s head of state – has been caught, once again, bowing to another nation’s head of state. And although it isn’t a sign of disrespect not to do so, the most powerful man in the world keeps volunteering to show off his scalp to anyone who’ll look. It isn’t just embarrassing. It isn’t just inappropriate. It is absolutely unnecessary. Barack Obama isn’t a traveling business executive respecting the cultural landscape of his host country. He is not an ordinary civilian traveling in Japan with a tour group. He is the damn President of the United States. He bows to no one.
Or, at least, that’s how it should be.
And no, this wasn’t a little tiny tip of the head. This wasn’t a modest gesture done out of respect – which would have been unnecessary anyway, given that the two men also shook hands. This was an acquiescent, obsequious, servile full-body bend-over unbecoming of the President of the United States.
Americans simply do not bow to foreign monarchs. Period.
Personally, I think this latest bow may be a bit deeper than the one Obama offered to the Saudi King in April.
Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: Emperor of Japan, Obama bow, Obama bows, Saudi King | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009
Let’s say, for instance, you brought your car to a local mechanic and ultimately wound up getting horrible service. Aside from the aggravation and frustration, you’d probably feel as if you’ve been swindled out of your hard earned money.
Now for the sake of this discussion, let’s say that a year later, despite your better judgment, you decide to give that mechanic one more try, only to have a similarly negative experience. In both instances, the customer service was dreadful and you were made to feel like an inconvenience. To top it off, you were overcharged and made to wait far longer than you should have.
Would you ever go back?
How about an accounting firm charged with balancing the books for your small business? Let’s say for three years running, the firm had so mismanaged your ledgers – and ultimately your tax returns – that the IRS decided to audit you.
Do you stick with them, figuring the fourth year to be the one where everything will finally be set right?
Or do you kick them to the curb (which you probably should have done two years ago)?
And what about the federal government?
Let’s say they passed into law a $787 billion Stimulus bill that was supposed to, by definition, “stimulate” economic growth by creating as many as 3.7 million new jobs across the country. And let’s say after nine months or so, with only a percentage of the money “infused” into the economy, the federal government started claiming that their hyper-spending was working – that the money they “invested” in America was saving or creating a whole lot of jobs, just as promised.
And let’s say not too long after the federal government made such a claim, news reports started coming out refuting those government assertions as being “wildly exaggerated.”
Not “marginally incorrect.”
Not “inappreciably erroneous.”
Not “slightly off.”
But “wildly exaggerated.”
And let’s say that during this time period, unemployment figures were still on the rise.
And let’s say those miscalculations by the federal government were only one in a long line of grossly inaccurate claims made by them, ultimately costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars, creating an endless labyrinth of government bureaucracy, and rewarding inefficiency with more of the people’s hard earned money.
Would you then feel confident enough to trust them to run your health care delivery system?
(Keep in mind that the current government-run health delivery systems – Medicare and Medicaid – have been disgustingly mismanaged by the same federal government).
On one hand, President Barack Obama is now claiming that his Spendulous Bill has saved or created one million jobs. One million jobs. All the while, the unemployment rate is as high as it’s been in one-quarter century … and rising.
On the other, the Boston Globe – not exactly a buttress of conservatism – says that the messianic claims being peddled by Bammy, at least in Massachusetts, are “wildly exaggerated.”
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.”
Other examples from across the country illustrating the fairy-tale that is the Obama Million-Job-Farce include two Colorado child development centers that reported saving or creating 292 jobs. In actuality, the vast majority of the money was used to give cost-of-living raises. In all, only three new jobs were created.
In Washington, 34,500 jobs were supposedly saved or created – 24,000 of which were teaching positions. Stimulus money was used to cover paychecks, hence the claim of having “saved” the jobs. Unfortunately for the Bammy-Number-Crunching Machine, none of those jobs were in danger of going away because the money needed to cover those salaries would have come out of the state general fund. Those teachers were already contracted to finish the school year.
In Danville, Virginia, $35,000 is said to have created or saved 50 jobs. That’s quite a claim. In truth, the money didn’t create a single job – nor did it save any – but it did improve fifty already existing jobs. It went for raises, training, and playground repair.
In the Columbus, Ohio School District, where 36 school administrators were supposedly on the brink of being laid off, it turns out that no one was on the brink of being let go. There were only two options for officials to choose from on the form they were required to fill out for receiving stimulus money: “created” or “saved.” Since the jobs already existed, the only choice left was “saved.”
Stimulus money is said to have saved the jobs of 473 teachers in North Chicago. Unfortunately, the district only employs 290 teachers.
As talk show host Mark Levin said on his radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama were on the witness stand and made the million jobs claim under oath, he’d be a perjurer.
And yet, the federal government will somehow suddenly get it right and be trusted to manage the health care needs of Americans.
Posted in Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: $787 billion, economic recovery, Million Jobs Saved or Created, Recovery Bill, stimulus bill, Stimulus Package, wildly exaggerated jobs saved claim | Leave a Comment »