Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2010
The latest Presidential Daily Tracking Poll numbers from Rasmussen are in … and they’re not good.
Now to be fair, these figures were tabulated almost entirely from surveys taken before Obama’s Gulf oil spill address last evening – the defining moment of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Thus, I concede to being somewhat hesitant in posting the results.
It would be akin to assessing the life and accomplishments of Winston Churchill ten years before the start of World War II, or evaluating the career of Babe Ruth before he ever put on a major league baseball uniform.
Honestly, how can one appraise Lincoln without acknowledging the Gettysburg Address?
How can one take measure of Reagan’s stand against the Evil Empire without acknowledging his “Tear Down This Wall” speech?
Likewise, I grant that citing the President’s ever-plummeting approval numbers based on data compiled before last night’s history-altering, game-changing speech from the Oval Office places my credibility at risk.
But hey, what the hell …
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 75% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 12% Strongly Approve and 52% Strongly Disapprove.
These results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, today’s results are based almost entirely on interviews conducted before the president’s speech to the nation. The impact of the president’s speech will be seen over the next several days.
Heading into the speech, 30% of voters gave President Obama good or excellent marks for handling the oil spill. Forty-five percent (45%) said he was doing a poor job. Most voters (57%) still favor offshore oil drilling.
Rasmussen also says that only 42% of Americans “somewhat approve” of this President’s performance. Since the dawn of the Messianic Age, that number has never been lower.
(Feel free to take an “ouch” out of petty cash).
But Obamacrats need not fear. Last night’s “Wrong Speech At The Wrong Time” presentation will figure in to the Presidential Daily Tracking Poll soon enough.
Hopefully, by then, the White House can squeeze in one more glitz-and-glam event with another ex-Beatle.
Ringo turns seventy next month.
Posted in Polls | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll | Leave a Comment »
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
CNN's curmudgeon, Jack Cafferty
CNN’s Jack Cafferty is wondering why President Barack Obama seems to have lost his touch.
Assuming the President ever had a “touch” that wasn’t the result of well-placed teleprompters and a hypnotized lamestream media, what is hurting him (aside from his leftist agenda) is the realization that campaigning and leadership are not synonymous. The President – with a resume that would qualify him for little more than Assistant Slushee Machine Operator at 7-11 – has been in stuck in campaign mode for three years. That may be great for t-shirt manufacturers, button makers and Chris Matthews’ leg, but not very helpful otherwise.
America is still waiting for him to act like a President.
From using hanging-out-in-front-of-the-bodega language on national television to bowing to foreign heads of state, Barack Obama is the least presidential big cheese any of us has ever seen.
Like it or not, there are times when a President is called upon to be a father figure to the nation: to sympathize, comfort and reassure us when things are bad. It’s what made Reagan and Clinton so very popular. Whatever happened to that firebrand charismatic speaker who made a thrill go up Chris Matthews’ leg?
The President’s in trouble.
As Barack Obama marks five-hundred days in office, a new average of polls shows only 48% of the public approves of the job he’s doing. And those numbers aren’t good enough if he plans to spend more than four years running this country.
Here’s the question: Why does President Obama seem to have lost his touch?
I’m not sure I necessarily agree that the President needs to be a “father figure” per se, although I appreciate the point he is trying to make.
I, for one, don’t look for a “daddy” in a Commander-In-Chief. I look for strength and conviction. I look for someone who will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I look for someone not to coddle the citizenry, but to advance the values of rugged individualism, personal responsibility, community and liberty. I look for someone to stand up for the values that have made America the greatest nation the world has ever known.
You don’t need to be a “daddy” to accomplish that; just a leader.
Given the choice, I’ll take an effective distant cousin over an ineffective father any day to lead the United States – man, woman, black, white, Christian, Jew, no matter … so long as his or her value system is in line with the American value system as brilliantly defined by talk show host Dennis Prager as the “American Trinity”: Liberty, In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum.
Still, as Proof at the great Proof Positive blog says, “Jack Cafferty has become my favorite CNN commentator.”
He is the only thing on the network that has become “must see TV.”
Posted in Media | Tagged: Barack Obama, CNN, commentary, Jack cafferty, losing his touch | 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 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 20, 2010
What's a little border among friends?
What would have been a real stride toward solidifying the “bonds” with Mexico that help to define our nation – as President Barack Obama said yesterday – was if the United States, in honor of our neighbors to the south, publicly announced a brand-spanking-new immigration policy identical to that of Mexico.
Just think of how historic that would have been.
With Mexican President Felipe Calderon standing by his side, imagine how thick the “bonds” that help define our nation – as President Barack Obama said yesterday – would have become if, as a true gesture of friendship and admiration, Barack Obama announced that the United States had decided to enact, word for word, the very immigration policy currently on the books in Mexico.
It would have been a moment for the ages.
Obama could have announced that simply to be an illegal alien in the United States would be a felony … just like it is in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that people would be admitted into the United States “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress” … just like they are in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that immigrants will be “useful elements for the country” and that they must have the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents … just like it is in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that foreigners can, and will, be removed if their presence disturbs “the equilibrium of the national demographics” … just like they are in Mexico.
Obama could have announced that those who are deported from the United States and re-enter the country illegally can be put in prison for up to ten years … just like in Mexico.
He could have done that.
Talk about missing a golden opportunity …
Instead, the White House opted to throw an over-the-top, glitz-and-glam state dinner last evening for the leader of the nation who supplies America with the vast majority of its illegal aliens – a party rife with celebrities, fashionistas and leftocrat elites. This is the same White House that has ridiculed corporations for paying CEOs outlandish sums of money, told us that we just can’t eat everything we want, and said that a recession was no time for profits.
Is there anyone who doesn’t believe that if crude oil were washing up on Louisiana’s shore while a Republican occupied the White House – and, say, a glamorous party honoring Israel were being thrown – a date would have been set already for the impeachment hearings?
Posted in Foreign Policy, illegal immigration | Tagged: Barack Obama, Felip calderon, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, illegal immigration, immigration policy, Mexico, Miexo, state dinner | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 19, 2010
I’m so delighted that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has finally infused some badly-needed clarity into the immigration debate. I knew it was only a matter of time before the most consequential and sumptuous man ever to occupy the Oval Office wrapped his mighty hands around the tumor of confusion that is the immigration discussion and ripped it out of the body politic.
The healing may now officially begin.
And just like that, over two centuries of timeworn thinking – born of repression, exclusion, alienation and greed – has finally been cast onto the trash heap of time. The “fences” built by that overrated gang of dead, slave-owning white guys who obsessed over God, guns and liberty all those years ago are no longer a constraint in these newly transformed United States – except, of course, in the terrorist state of Arizona.
Taking a page from his “Citizen of The World” handbook, Barack Obama today said that the United States of America is not defined by its borders.
Speaking to Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama said:
Mr. President, your visit speaks to a truth of our time in North America and the world. In the 21st Century, we are defined, not by our borders, but by our bonds. So, I say to you and the Mexican people, “Let us stand together. Let us face the future together. Let us work together.”
I am regularly amazed – although I shouldn’t be – when liberals speak. So often when they open their mouths, they make sounds approximating coherent language but say absolutely nothing – and yet, their words are regularly heralded as sheer brilliance, particularly in the case of Barack Obama.
Take a moment and re-read what President Obama said.
There is not a proton’s worth of meaning or substance in a single word of it. It isn’t even banal enough to grab the attention of fortune cookie makers and bumper sticker companies.
He said nothing.
How exactly are we defined by our “bonds?” What on earth is that supposed to mean in the real world? How does what we may have in common with another nation define us?
Mr. President, the United States of America is defined by her values. We are defined, as talk show host Dennis Prager commonly says, by the American Trinity: “In God We Trust,” “E Pluribus Unum” and “Liberty.” It is what makes this country the greatest the world has ever known. It is what makes America a beacon to the entire world. It is what sets us apart from other free nations.
“Bonds” do not define this country … whatever that means.
That may, indeed, be the most birdbrained utterance ever to come out of Barack Obama’s mouth – and believe me, consdiering the body of his work, I don’t make such a statement lightly.
And what the hell does “let us face the future together” mean? (Did the White House hand out complimentary vomit sacks to those in attendance today?) Why not throw in an “All for one and one for all” while you’re there? Or a “We’ve got to pull together” for good measure?
Is this man paid by the cliche?
My God, is there a man alive who can spew more emptiness and meaninglessness that Barack Obama?
Incidentally, the crack staff here at Roman Around is trying to determine whether or not Obama bowed to Calderon.
Also, it cannot be confirmed whether or not Calderon presented Obama with the Cheech and Chong collectors DVD box set.
And just so you know … President Obama took two questions today – one from a reporter from Univision, and other from a Mexican newspaper.
That’s all, folks.
I’m surprised he didn’t mention anything about Arlen Specter getting his ass kicked last night.
Posted in Foreign Policy, illegal immigration | Tagged: allegal immigration, Barack Obama, defined by bonds, Felipe Calderon, illegal aliens, Mexican President, not defined by borders | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 17, 2010
Woody Allen - his stepdaughter's lover
There is something to be said for American leftists who do not attempt to disguise the fact that they are, in fact, hard core, moonstruck leftists. It’s somewhat refreshing – in a perverse sort of way – observing an angry moonbat from the dark side of the aisle allowing his or her totalitarian feathers to bristle in the breeze a little bit. In the spirit of “clarity over agreement” (the main credo of radio talk show host Dennis Prager), I almost feel the need to applaud those who comprise that most resplendent group of ungrateful, morally bereft leftist dullards – those who make no bones about their veneration for despotism and tyranny.
On those occasions when I am afforded the opportunity to listen to the bemoaning of some exceedingly wealthy, self-centered, elitist ingrate – one who has reaped the benefits of being a citizen of the freest nation on God’s green Earth – refusing to go through the trouble of having to fake a love of liberty, and instead openly admitting to having a man-crush on authoritarianism, I have to tip my hat.
Indeed, whenever a successful, spoiled-brat, whiny leftist – perhaps an athiest to boot – steps up and says that an oligarchy would be good for this country, I walk away a little impressed.
Because some people don’t realize (or care) how mournfully demented and dim-witted they sound – and that’s a quality almost worth admiring.
However, there’s an illuminating point to be made here.
Note how such courageous declarations usually don’t take place on American soil. Generally, these brave loonbuckets make sure their feet are planted on foreign ground before they spew their excremental pontifications, often speaking to small, out-of–the-way media outlets that will all but be ignored by the American mainstream media.
And they’re right.
If not for the conservative blogosphere, no one would ever hear these things.
Take the latest commentary from film director, Woody Allen – a man who has the distinction of being his own (unofficial) step-daughter’s husband.
It turns out that Woody is not only in love with President Barack Obama – in that “wow, he is totally awesome” Elena Kagan sort of way – but he thinks “a lot of good stuff” could come from an Obama dictatorship.
From Jim Hoft at the great Gateway Pundit blog:
Woody Allen wants Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years so that he can completely socialize America. The article published today, May 15, 2010, did not make it into any English-language paper. The article quotes Allen as saying [first in Spanish, then in English from a trusted reader] –
“Estoy encantado con Obama, creo que es genial. El Partido Republicano debería quitarse de su camino y dejar de intentar herirle.”
“I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”
And, the money quote:
“…sería bueno…si pudiera ser un dictador durante algunos años, porque podría hacer un montón de cosas buenas rápidamente.”
The translated quote:
“…it would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.”
Of course, this comes as a complete shock.
What is it with these leftist loons and their passion for socialist dictators?
… because according to that master-theorist and intellectualist, Woody Allen, a quick perusal of the history of dictatorships on planet Earth has sufficiently proven to him that an Obama-led dictatorship could actually reap a lot of “good stuff” for the American people.
Besides, according to Allen, Obama is “cool” – perhaps, the most important criterion of an effective leader to a leftist.
What could be better for America than a “cool dictator?”
Stalin, for instance, had that push-broom moustache and wore heavy wool. Very uncool.
Hitler’s cookie duster was painfully small, and his boots were loud. Besides, he wasn’t very good looking and couldn’t make shots from outside the arc. Squaresville.
And Mao? Sure, he may have been a philosophical superman, but he didn’t exactly have matinee-idol appeal and certainly wasn’t hip to the latest tunes.
A loser, really.
Barack Obama, however, is “cool” … and if you can’t take the word of a man who is married to a girl he met when she was ten (and he was forty-five), who can you trust?
Add to that the fact that Barack Obama is “brilliant,” and one can actually begin to understand why someone like Allen doesn’t bother believing in God. Why should he? An invisible Supreme Being living “up in the sky” hung up on millenia-old morals could never match up, in terms of style and substance, with Chicago’s favorite teleprompted metrosexual socialist.
Note how that seems to be the superlative of choice among libs in describing the President: “brilliant.”
Exactly why Barack Obama is supposed to be so “brilliant” has yet to be revealed, but he continues to trigger orgasmic adulation among those who still look to Neil Young and David Crosby for their political inspiration. Exactly what he has done to warrant such an assessment has yet to be realized, but he does enjoy waffles – just like us common folk do.
That the President’s head moves like a well-greased weather vane from side to side as he switches from one teleprompter to another could be part of it.
Anyway, it would only be for a few years, according to Allen.
It would be for our own good.
Can you say “swastika”?
Posted in American culture, Dumb Liberals, Entertainment, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: Barack Obama, dictatorship, leftism, Obamamania, Woody Allen | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 11, 2010
British Prime Minister, David Cameron
In commenting on the resignation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (and the ascendancy of the Conservative Party’s David Cameron to the slot), ZIP at the great Weasel Zippers blog writes: “I sense a box of DVDs and an iPod of Obama speeches in David Cameron’s future… “
While it is a great line I wish I would have thought of – or at least posted first – I think ZIP (with all due respect) may be slightly wrong on this one.
Remember, Barack Obama is not exactly a giver – unless, of course, you classify a fake eight-dollar-a-month tax “cut” funded by the rich as “giving.” He’s not exactly thoughtful – unless you consider his ability to woosh his head effortlessly from the left teleprompter to the right as contemplative.
Seeing as Barack Obama is a proponent of spreading the wealth, I predict that the President of the United States will ask Gordon Brown for the box of DVDs back so that he might redistribute them to David Cameron.
And in the spirit of friendship and narcissism, Obama may even update the collection with a few new titles:
–“The Great Obama Faintings of Campaign ’08.”
-“The Waters That I Walk Upon – How Humility Made Me The Most Important Human Being That Has Ever Lived. (The Barack Obama Story)”
-“How I Made The American Constitution Fall Down And Go Bam.”
Reports that the White House has been calling around for the best international shipping rates so that the HMS Resolute desk can be sent back to Queen Victoria in London cannot be confirmed.
President Obama is expected to be informed that Queen Victoria died in 1901 later today.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons | Tagged: Barack Obama, David Cameron, Gordon Borwn, new Prime Minister of England | 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 25, 2010
In February, 2009 – not even a month into the Messianic Age – the President made a visit to Southwest Florida. He was at his “savior-of-all-mankind” apex, when his mere presence provoked the kind of adulation reserved for Beatles and Popes. This was the era when people would show up at Obama rallies thinking that by simply looking at him, they’d suddenly have the answers. This was the era when folks believed Obama would find a way to pay their rents for them and keep the lights on.
Here’s a little piece I penned at the time, originally posted on 11 February, 2009:
Nearly one-third of the Fort Myers, Florida police department was assigned to “body removal patrol” – that is, clearing away those who had fainted. Fully one-half of all EMT personnel in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties were called in to resuscitate those for whom the whole event was too much. From Southwest Regional Airport, all the way to the Harborside Events Center where HE spoke last evening, all along the route – and for three miles in each direction off his motorcade path – businesses were ordered closed, residents were ordered to leave, pets rounded up and kept out of sight, and nearly thirty-two million people lined the streets to get a glimpse of HIM.
On Daniels Road, thousands were seen licking the black top where HIS limo had driven passed. Others were stretched across the median crying loudly, flailing their arms, while others wept silently. All along HIS travel route, worshippers struggled to break security lines so that they might inhale some of the exhaust fumes coming from HIS car. One even wrapped herself in a giant burrito and covered herself in sour cream and picante sauce and dangled herself from a “Yield” sign on US 41 when she heard that HE liked tex mex. The blind and physically handicapped were brought to the parking lot of the Harborside Events Center to touch full-color Xerox copies of HIS image. The deaf were allowed to watch a young man wearing a rubber Obama mask communicate articulately in sign language the way HE might do if he couldn’t hear.
Before HIS arrival, devotees were ushered in by the droves, from all walks of life, from the very sick to the young and healthy, wearing “Obama Is King” t-shirts, carrying “Heal Me Obama” signs, wearing “Bend me, Shape me, Obama Baby” buttons. Some were seen pulling in their Bam-O-Matic Messiah Brand dialysis machines and diabetes test kits. As many as two-hundred million Americans crammed into the Publix parking lot across the street and into the field behind the Circle K adjacent to the venue to be able to say they exhaled the very carbon dioxide that fed the palm tree by the back entrance of the building where HE was going to conduct a townhall meeting.
The excitement was immeasurable. In the aisles, obstetricians were inducing labor on pregnant women so that HIS voice would be the first their babies heard upon entering the world. The dead were exhumed and wheeled in so that HE might inject life into them. Hundreds of children were singing songs of praise to HIM in four thousand different languages. The swimming pool in the center of the arena was cleaned one last time so that HE would have unsullied water to walk on during HIS presentation. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was seen picking out Drake’s Coffee Cake crumbs from the grill of the microphone HE would use (Michael Moore spoke there the night before), while Keith Olbermman had wads of Charmin Ultra Soft bathroom tissue wound up in hand and at the ready should HE need to visit the facilities.
Just moments before HE made his appearance, the roof of the venue opened up to sounds of clapping thunder so deafening that the dead began to stir. Forty-four streaks of lightning then came from the heavens, illuminating the night sky with a brilliance the likes of which had not been seen by human eyes until then. The audience at once fell to its knees as a beam of paisley hot light rose from the depths of the swimming pool, morphing into a violent red vortex of flame, eventually reaching through the open roof, into the night sky, beyond the clouds.
More sounds of calamitous thunder echoed across Lee County and into the Gulf of Mexico as HE appeared.
At first no one dared to lay eyes upon HIM until HE said that they all were permitted to look.
He told them to raise their eyes, and they did.
The applause lasted eleven hours, eighteen minutes.
As President Barack Obama eventually began to speak, nearly thirteen thousand women lost consciousness instantaneously. Another ten thousand – including men – became woozy from constantly mouthing the words “I love you, Barack” over and over again. Tears flowed down every cheek in the hall.
Paraplegics stood up.
The halitosis-inflicted had minty fresh breath.
They came to see HIM, to sniff HIM, to be hugged by HIM, to have their gaping wounds touched by HIM, to have their electricity bills paid by HIM, to have their homes financed by HIM, to have their food supplied by HIM, to have their infections cleansed by HIM, to have their souls healed by HIM, and to ask HIM questions.
And they did.
Q: “Mr. Obama, why?”
A: “Uh .. because.”
Q: “Mr. One, how can I be a better person?”
A: “Uh .. you definitely can.”
Q: “Mr. President, things are tough for me. Can you pay my mortgage?”
A: “Let me hug you.”
Q: “Oh Great Obama, does this shirt make me look fat?”
A: “There are no fat cats here.”
Q: “Do you love us? Will you save us?”
A: “I won.”
Q: “Can you give me stuff?”
A: “Yes we can.”
HE fielded six thousand, two-hundred seventeen questions at the Harborside Events Center in Fort Myers, Florida last evening – and shared his tongue and onion sandwich with everyone who came to see him.
When it was all said and done – after all the waffles had been eaten, and long after the last healed cripple jogged home to wait by the mailbox for his stimulus check – The One spoke to reporters about what was truly a magnificent evening, saying, “Are you the Huffington Post guy? Or is it that gay looking dude?”
One thing is for certain … He left an everlasting impression upon those who came by car service and Subaru to see him.
Next up at the Harborside Events Center, the Frank Cox Gem and Jewelry Show, February 13-15, 2009.
Posted in humor | Tagged: Barack Obama, Fort Myers, Harborside, humor, messiah, Parody, The One | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010
Remember when the President redefined the word “earmark” so that he could look back at the American people and say (in that smooth-as-Ex-Lax community-organizing way of his): “There are no earmarks in this bill”?
Remember when the President said he would be giving tax cuts to 95% of the American people (without actually cutting a single tax rate, mind you) when all he was actually doing was siphoning money from the wealthiest Americans and redistributing it?
Remember when this was going to be the most transparent administration in history?
Remember blah, blah, blah, yadda-yadda, ishkabibble, do-re-me?
In Barack Obama’s world, there are no parameters, no guidelines, and no standards that he does not define. He creates the rules as he goes along. He sets the terms of the game.
It is the liberal way.
Nothing is bigger than he. America’s future is endowed by its Obama.
If, for instance, he needs to say that health care costs will be magically cheaper for everyone by adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls without increasing the pool of doctors, BOOM! It is suddenly so.
If it suits him to say that the science behind global warming is settled, SHAZAM! It is settled.
He says it, so it is truth.
Take the Bush tax cuts, for instance.
Barack Obama, in a CNBC interview, said that America cannot afford to keep the Bush tax cuts in tact. He says that it is “perfectly fair” to return to the tax rates of the Clinton era. (See the video here, via the great Freedom’s Lighthouse blog)
No matter how you slice it, by definition, that is a tax hike.
Of course, Barack Obama will not look at it that way. He is simply allowing the rates to return to what they once were.
The fact is, tax rates will increase with Barack Obama at the helm. It doesn’t make a difference if those tax hikes are the result of new legislation enactment or allowing previous legislation to lapse. Tax rates will go up with Barack Obama steering the ship. He can shape it, explain it, rationalize it, justify it and manipulate it any way he pleases, but the bottom line is: Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse is, definitionally, a tax increase.
Of course, according to Obama, this action would only affect the “rich” – defined by the Annointed One as anyone making over $250,000 a year. They would see their Bush-era tax cuts lapse, because the President has decided that they can afford it.
The “rich” make enough money.
How can Barack Obama say that it is “perfectly fair” to return to Clinton-era tax rates when not everyone will be doing so? What is “fair” about it? Why is it that those who are the most successful – the ones who, in many cases actually put the rest of us to work – are being singled out? How is this good for America?
It’s Obama-style fairness: the push for equality, liberalism’s most important value. In Obamistan, it’s always best to bring those who are at the top down than to encourage people and create incentives for those at the bottom to go up.
In his CNBC interview, the President also said that 98% of “workin’ families” got “tax cuts.”
What tax cuts are these?
Does he mean the money sucked from the “rich” and redistributed to “workin’ families” to the tune of eight dollars a month?
Is he kidding?
Those are not tax cuts … but because he says they are, tax cuts they shall be.
The Congressional Budget Office officially scores those “cuts” (i.e., refundable credits) under “direct spending.”
When the President said, “I don’t think we can afford it,” it would have been nice if the “journalist” interviewing him would have followed up with, “You mean, like the bailouts and health care reform?”
Posted in Big Government, politics, Taxes | Tagged: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bush tax cuts, CNBC | Leave a 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 9, 2010
(Actually, quite believable).
There is ostensibly nothing – absolutely nothing – the current administration will not endeavor to involve itself in (except competent national security). Perhaps a better way to state it is that this administration believes nothing should be beyond the reach (and direct influence) of government.
With an audacity remeniscent of a chorus of crunching jackboots slowly approaching from just over the hill, Obamacrats – the same folks that recently turned over the student loan system to the federal government simply because they felt like it – is on a no-holds-barred course of seizing and controlling as much of the private sector as it possibly can.
I am well aware of how that sounds, but I assure you, this is not paranoia.
These are not radical right-wing talking points.
If you want radicals, just look to the White House and Capitol Hill.
America has never seen anything quite like the way this administration operates. The will of the people be damned, and to hell with the Constitution, never has a President ever attempted, in such a short amount of time and in such a brazenly agenda-driven anti-American way (yes, anti-American), to imbue the heavy hand of government in everything possible. Not like this. The President, in fact, seems to have made it his central focus to thrash whatever maxims of American liberty repulse him (which, being a disciple of Saul Alinsky, means just about everything). He’s doing so with a deaf ear and an iron mallet of relentless leftism – the master overseer of the largest, most intrusive and controlling government monster ever to occupy this part of the North American continent.
This is just the latest episode of “Power To the State!”
It seems that Bammy and Crew have decided that they are not happy with the concept of the unpaid internship. In fact, the Labor Department is now looking into the legality of having someone serve as an intern, without pay, at any for-profit enterprise in the United States; and if the President gets his way, these private sector unpaid internships – meaning free-market, free-enterprise agreements made between private business owners and willing individuals (almost always college students looking to gain critical experience as well as college credits) – will go the way of betamax machines, rotary telephones and (eventually) American liberty itself.
From Fox Nation:
“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy Leppink, deputy administrator of the department’s wage and hour division, according to a story in the New York Times.
It’s easy to view the action as the inevitable mischief of Democrats, irritating but not fatal. Such an attitude, however, overlooks what a blow this policy can represent to young people trying to establish careers.
Back in our parents’ or grandparents’ days, interns were mostly thought of as physicians-in-training. Eventually, an internship came to mean an initial training experience, perhaps unpaid, for people on the cusp of entering the workforce. This stepping stone to a hoped-for paid job became commonplace in many industries and a rite of passage for the college set, especially Ivy Leaguers.
These temporary positions became popular partly due to prosperity. During the past half century, many U.S. college students enjoyed the luxury of trying out different fields whereas previous generations had to make career choices quickly.
In other words, the Chief Executive of the United States is telling (nay, dictating to) this nation’s young people – America’s future, I’ve heard the President call them – that they will no longer have the option (the right to choose, you might say) of volunteering his or her time with a privately-owned, free market enterprise. The point of such internships, of course, is to afford prospective interns the opportunity to gain vital experience that will, in turn, make them productive and valuable assets in the work force. Yet, the President of the United States has decided, by whim and whisper, that he will put the kibosh on a system of learning, training and invaluable networking that has helped sustain the very existence of America’s free-market system by literally helping to provide for its future in the best and most efficient way possible.
Not that Barack Obama is particularly enamored with free enterprise.
Incidentally, one needn’t receive money to be “paid.” Experience is often a more valuable commodity in the work force at that early stage of a person’s professional life. Unpaid internships are wonderfully important resume fillers. Bosses look for things like that.
The real question is: How in the world is doing away with unpaid internships good for America? How does eliminating such a thing benefit this country’s young people looking to prepare for their futures?
This is simply unbelievable.
(I keep saying that. Actually, it’s very believable).
Mr. President, these are individual choices made by free Americans! Stay the hell out of it!
Erick Erickson at Red State points out, if Obama gets his way, young people will still have the option to volunteer with the government.
If you want to work as a Congressional or White House intern, for Organizing for America, or any other non-profit, they’ll let you do it. But if you want to actually work for a business that produces goods and services in the free market? You’re screwed as is the business. And guess what? Existing workers will be spread more thinly and college kids will wait longer and longer for jobs.
My next question (in a long list of thousands) would be to ask whether or not this policy applies to non-profit organizations as well. Would these new anti-intern laws pertain to left-wing “community organizing” groups, too? Or will some enterprising Capitol Hill Democrat try to devise a workaround of some sort to allow the likes of ACORN (or whatever it’s called now) to indoctrinate – er, take on interns?
Or is this just a blatant, in-your-face, no-need-to-cloak-it assault on the free-market system?
Honestly, there can be no other purpose here than to intentionally hamstring free enterprise.
The President of the United States does not – repeat, does not – have the authority to curtail rights guaranteed to the people of the United States in the Constitution – namely, the freedom of assembly (and, by extension and definition, the freedom of association). How is it possible for the Chief Executive to say that it will be against the law for me, or anyone, to volunteer my time anywhere I damn well please (assuming that institution is not engaging in illegal activity)? Do I not have the right to charge an individual or company for my services, if I so choose? And if I decide to charge nothing for those services, do I not have that right as well?
These are choices that I make, as an individual.
This has nothing to do with the President, Congress, the government, the cleaning lady or anyone other than the privately owned enterprise that wants to have an intern, and the individual who wishes to be an intern.
No one is being taken advantage of, no one is being cheated, no deception of any kind is taking place.
We leave that to the government.
Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Nanny State | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Big Government, college students, Department of Labor, for-profit employer, free enterprise, free market, President Obama, unpaid interns, unpaid internships | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 22, 2010
I came across this picture at the great Weasel Zippers blog.
It isn’t a particularly earth-shattering photo, as you can see. It certainly won’t win any Pulitzer Prizes (although it may earn President Obama another Nobel Prize for an accomplishment to be named later).
Just a couple of raging libs out for a walk.
However, I am including it here because, at first glance, it struck me as a touch odd.
I assure you, my intention is not poke fun at anyone or hurl unwarranted insults at two amazingly easy targets.
(Is there such a thing as an unwarranted Obama insult?)
I wonder … Am I the only one who thinks Hillary Clinton looks as if she is about to give birth? Or maybe trying to sneak a small ham out of the A&P?
And doesn’t Barack Obama look as if he’s got bad cramps?
Or that he might have been on the receiving end of a steel-top boot to the jewels?
These are the things I notice when Democrats try to destroy my country.
Posted in Everything Else | Tagged: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton | 2 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 4, 2010
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
Maybe the White House was thinking, “It looks so obvious, so blatant, they won’t think anyone could be that stupid. They’ll decide it’s just a coincidence.”
Maybe the White House thinks we are that stupid.
On the other hand, maybe there really is nothing to it.
Maybe it really is just a coincidence.
Either way, it’s a story that will get very little – if any – coverage by the mainstream media. All of the young “Woodward” and “Bernstein” wanna-bes out there in journalistland will be taking a convenient powder.
It’s a shame, because it’s actually an interesting story – certainly one worthy of visiting at least once. In the days when reporters actually did investigating, it might have grown legs.
What am I talking about?
Last night, the President played host to ten House Dems who voted against ObamaCare last year. Clearly, Obama was hoping to convince some of them – if not all – to flip their ticks over to the “yes” column for the good of the country.
One of those in Obama’s sights was Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.
What makes this otherwise run-of-the-mill, uninteresting political play a bona fide story is the fact that the White House issued a press release yesterday saying that President Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. – Congressman Matherson’s eldest brother – to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit … on the same day.
John McCormack at the Weekly Standard writes:
Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother’s vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress. “The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus,” Matheson’s press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. “It’s too early to know if that will occur.” Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: “I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday.”
The real question … Is this necessary now?
Inexplicably, this one seems to have slipped under the radar of the “drive-by media.”
Could this develop into an actual scandal of some kind?
It would first have to warrant a blurb somewhere.
However, one could almost bet a vital body appendage that it would have graced front pages everywhere had these group of players been Republicans.
The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.
I’m not a conspiracist.
Obviously, Court of Appeals nominations are not made on the drop of a dime. I suppose there is some chance that the choice of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit is all just a fat and happy coincidence.
But there’s no way – even if the process began before Congressman Matheson’s thumbs down vote in November – that yesterday’s announcement of the elder Matheson’s nomination just happened to fall on the same day ten Democrat “NO” votes visited the White House (including the younger Matheson) to be persuaded by Barack Obama to change sides.
No way in hell.
Somehow, I see a puffy-cheeked Marlon Brando putting his arm around Congressman Matheson in the Oval Office saying, “Congratulations on your brother’s nomination. I hope it all works out for him.”
Posted in Democrats, health care | Tagged: Barack Obama, Democrats, health care, Jim Matheson, Obamacare, politics, Scott M. Matheson, tenth Circuit Court of Appeals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 26, 2010
Some quick post-Health Care Summit thoughts … the morning after.
I truly wanted to avoid leveling any complaints about yesterday’s ObamaCare rap session, but after a good night’s sleep, and a clearer head, I am compelled to kvetch a bit.
First of all, why weren’t there more stories from Democrat constituents shared at yesterday’s summit? Why weren’t we regaled with more heartbreaking tales of insurance woe, like the one conveyed by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) about the woman who couldn’t afford dentures and was forced to use her dead sister’s false teeth?
Talk about captivating.
Like love bugs on the grill of my car on a Florida highway, that story has stuck with me.
I cannot be the only one wondering if she yanked them out herself or if she had someone retrieve them for her.
Why wasn’t that part of Slaughter’s story?
There really needed to be more yarns like that.
Couldn’t someone find any harrowing tales of in-grown hair mishaps to share? Wasn’t there at least one halitosis horror story to impart from the tens of billions of letters they must have received from desperate constituents? Wasn’t there even a single testimonial about the scourge of anal fissures anywhere to be found? Surely there has to be at least one stinging bum sob story in that stack.
Second, if there are going to be any more “props” brought in to any of these summits, at least make sure they’re battery powered.
Lastly, if this summit, complete with Obama death-stares and Joe Biden open-microphone mutterings, is not released on DVD and blu ray, I will be very angry.
The fact is, President Obama took a page from the Thugs and Fools Songbook yesterday and showed why he is not only in way over his head as the Big Cheese but childishly incompetent when the pressure is on – which, these days, is all the time. He tried to bully dissenters and came across as both angry and ill-informed. He tried to accuse Republicans of playing political games when they voiced legitimate concerns about ObamaCare by quoting actual passages from the 2000-page bill – which Obama didn’t read.
It was supposed to be Obama’s day, but it wasn’t.
Not even close.
It was a good day for America, however.
Thus, like global warming, another myth is duly shattered: That Republicans are the “Party of No” and couldn’t care less about health care. The notion that Republicans have no grasp of the nation’s health care situation or are without ideas on how to deal with it has been shown to be a lie that Dems can’t use as a talking point anymore.
Ouch for them.
Posted in health care | Tagged: Barack Obama, Health Care Summit, Louis Slaughter | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2010
I didn’t want them to go.
I admit I was wrong.
Yes, I swore I was only going to pay peripheral attention to this Obama health care summit thing. For the past week I was pecking lightly at the “I Couldn’t Care Less” snack platter. The whole notion of Barack Obama holding court with those he treats worse – and sees as more of an enemy – than Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a joke of epic proportion. I saw the entire thing as a fraud, a no-win situation for Republicans.
Besides, the last thing on earth I was interested in was another one of these Obama “summits.” Using the word “Obama” and “summit” in the same sentence is like saying “Jimmy Carter” and “national security” in the same breath.
Yet, thus far, I have been surprised – although I shouldn’t be. I have been entertained – although I didn’t want to be. For our President, it has proven to be a carnival of unparalleled arrogance, worthy of a slot on the Gershwin Theater stage.
No one does it better.
Along with the fact that the smooth-talking, well-dressed Chicagoland socialist has looked wholly unprepared for the questions and commentary he was fielding this morning, it is obvious that he hasn’t even read the health care bills that are being discussed, unlike the Republicans who have come in primed and ready. Stellar performances by people like Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, who clearly has read the bill – and quite literally confronted the President on actual portions of the proposed legislation – has made the stumbling, bumbling Chief Executive look foolish.
Of course, Bammy didn’t need Cantor’s help for that.
If ever there was a human in need of a teleprompter, it is Barack Obama.
It’s quite comical.
At every turn, the President has managed to criticize the method by which Republicans are taking this bill to task.
As expected, everything the Republicans say is unhelpful to the process. Republican criticisms of the health care bill are political ploys to obstruct. Using or referring to the 2,000-plus page health care bills to make points is a distraction of “props.” So, while Republicans weathered messianic criticism for resorting to visual aids, Democrat Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa – and others – read emotional letters from constituents without ever being accused of “prop manipulation.”
As expected, Democrats rarely addressed the bill itself, instead playing the emotion card as often as possible.
You can do that when you think Americans are idots.
But the highlight of the day thus far – the thing everyone has been, and will be, talking about – is the Monument to Arrogance erected by the messiah himself when speaking to John McCain. It is this moment alone that has made this “summit” worthwhile.
Following remarks made by Senator John McCain, the President – with a pomposity and superiority that would have made Lady Gaga seem timid – responded, “Let me just make this point, John … because we’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
McCain retorted, “I’m reminded of that everyday.”
(What he should have said is that America is reminded of that everyday).
Is Barack Obama kidding? He lives in campaign mode. His entire political life is campaign mode. He is a revolving bumper sticker dispenser in well-tailored suits. He is Bromide-Man, able to leap over reality in a single bound.
It’s as obvious as the ears that dangle on his head that he hasn’t read the health care bill, and thus speaks about it in campaign buzz phrases. To accuse McCain – who ran his campaign like Air America ran their radio network – of being in campaign mode is beyond hilarious.
Incidentally, during this morning’s session, out of 164 total minutes of discussion time, Democrats had spoke for 108 of those minutes. Republicans spoke for 56.
Out of the 108 Democrat minutes, President Obama spoke for 58 of them.
Of course, that doesn’t count, according to Bam.
He’s the President, after all.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, CSPAN health care debates, Eric Cantor, health care reform, Health Care Summit | 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 17, 2010
Blame this one on George W. Bush, if you like – although in doing so, you’d almost be admitting you miss him. You can make the claim that Barack Obama is still wet behind the ears and needs more time to make the job his, but he’s more than a quarter of the way through his term, so the credibility in such a statement is minimal. You can point fingers at the vast right-wing, anti-Obama media complex, but then I’d ask you what your hallucinogen of choice is.
The fact is, the word “disastrous” is far too mild, and comparisons to Jimmy Carter are almost insulting to Carter.
I don’t think anyone could have predicted such a turnaround in so short a time.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Poll, more than half of all Americans – just thirteen months after the dawn of the Messianic Age – say they would not vote to give Barack Obama a second term.
The word “ouch” comes to mind.
Michael O’Brien of The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room writes:
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
It should be noted that retiring Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd still believes that President Obama will be re-elected overwhelmingly in 2012.
He also said that even if he were absolutely certain he could win re-election himself, he would not run again.
Anyone who believes that, please stand on your head.
Posted in Obama-Mania, Polls | Tagged: 2012 re-election, 52%, Barack Obama, CNN Poll | 2 Comments »
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 3, 2010
Rosie O’Donnell is America’s favorite pinup girl. Al Sharpton really does care about justice for all. Nancy Pelosi is the nation’s most trusted politician. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in big government.
How many times would you have to read those lines before you started believing they were true? Most of you would sooner shove a serrated ice pick into your retina.
Still, there comes a point – for some – when sheer repetition trumps reality. There is a time when repeating something over and over becomes so familiar to those within earshot that it is simply accepted or believed.
Take our President, for example.
Whatever land he is living in must currently be cracking down, because the rational are being detained at the border.
Once again, Bammy is talking up the success of his stimulus bill, going on about how many jobs have been “saved” or “created.” Once again, the President is repeating something that is, at the very least, impossible to substantiate, and at most, a catastrophic fraud.
In his case, reality has already been trumped.
Jake Tapper from ABC News writes:
President Obama veered off script – and away from the facts – when he spoke about the stimulus bill today in Nashua, NH.
“Now, if you hear some of the critics, they’ll say, well, the Recovery Act, I don’t know if that’s really worked, because we still have high unemployment,” the president said. “But what they fail to understand is that every economist, from the left and the right, has said, because of the Recovery Act, what we’ve started to see is at least a couple of million jobs that have either been created or would have been lost. The problem is, 7 million jobs were lost during the course of this recession.”
Um, it’s not true that “every economist” has said the Recovery Act has saved or created two million jobs.
What have some of them said?
The chair of his Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer wrote last month that “The CEA estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2009, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 1½ to 2 million.”
In her blog she wrote “approximately 2 million people are employed who otherwise would not be, because of the Act.”
At the end of November, Congressional Budget office Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote that because of the stimulus bill “in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States..”
But clearly other economists are much more skeptical, including Dan Mitchell at the libertarian Cato Institute, and J.D. Foster at The Heritage Foundation.
Some economists say the whole notion of counting “saved or created” jobs is impossible. Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz told ProPublica that trying to count how many jobs have been saved or created is “a silly exercise.”
And in fact, in December the Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag issued a directive scrapping the whole “saved or created” construct.
So, there are no economists anywhere who have not bought into this hogwash?
Just like there are no scientists who refute the perils of man-made global warming?
The same thinking that has me wondering why anyone would trust the government to handle health care reform when they couldn’t handle already existing government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, also has me asking why anyone in their right mind would trust anything the administration is saying about jobs being “saved” when they had such a perplexing time making sure that the districts receiving stimulus cash actually existed.
The entire stimulus recovery angle is a myth – much like the “climate change” hoax, or the “most transparent administration in history” garbage.
There are endless stories out there on how the “saved” and “created” criteria were painfully flawed.
Recall that entire zip codes didn’t exist, yet jobs were miraculously created or saved there.
Also keep in mind that the vast majority of these “saved jobs” were government jobs, so the entire premise, even if true, is misleading.
And yet, the President and his chums will keep saying “two million jobs” over and over again until it morphs into conventional wisdom. With bed fellows like the mainstream media, it’s only a matter of time before two million becomes two-and-a-half million. Then, it’ll be rounded up to three million. Before July 4th, the President will have saved or created twenty-eight million new jobs. The only reason there will be any unemployed at that point will be the fault of George W. Bush.
It’ll be repeated so often, it will become “true.”
Well, not here.
It’s all a crock of boiling excrement.
Posted in stimulus bill | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, jobs created, jobs saved, Recovery Act, spedulous bill, stimulus bill, Stimulus Package | 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 21, 2010
When you’re on the left, and you’re President of the United States, and your perceived ability to save human kind from itself by virtue of your existence has faded like belief in the Tooth Fairy, and only one year into what was to be a magical Messianic Age is the cold hard reality that America is not nearly as gullible as you had thought (or hoped), and when even the persistently annoying Marxist agenda-peddler Paul Krugman of the New York Times is slinging daggers at you, it may be time to re-evaluate.
Krugman, like other lefties, is caught in the whirlwind of his own tizzy-fit, anguished and frazzled, woebegone and farklempt, devastated and relegating himself to the painful truth that President Obama is not the one we’ve been waiting for. On that score, Krugman and I can agree – but his is a disappointment in the fact that Obama has not been able to yank the nation into the periphery of common sense, where the far left lives. His disenchantment is in the reality that the brilliant rhetoric-huckster from the golden campaign-trail days has been replaced by an over-teleprompted, over-exposed, over-rated political laggard without a scintilla of executive experience and no idea how to lead.
The stimulus bill wasn’t big enough. The President didn’t blame George Bush enough. The banks got off too easy. Blah, blah, blah …
His – *gulp* – doubts are being confirmed.
Health care reform — which is crucial for millions of Americans — hangs in the balance. Progressives are desperately in need of leadership; more specifically, House Democrats need to be told to pass the Senate bill, which isn’t what they wanted but is vastly better than nothing. And what we get from the great progressive hope, the man who was offering hope and change, is this:
“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don’t, then our budgets are going to blow up and we know that small businesses are going to need help so that they can provide health insurance to their families. Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill. Now I think there’s some things in there that people don’t like and legitimately don’t like.”
In short, “Run away, run away”!
Maybe House Democrats can pull this out, even with a gaping hole in White House leadership. Barney Frank seems to have thought better of his initial defeatism. But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.
I’ll reiterate that there isn’t a chance in hell that House Democrats sign onto the Senate version of Obamacare – or “LeftCare,” as talk show host Dennis Prager calls it. To Krugman, and others of the far leftist creed, House Dems need to summon the courage to be able to awaken the frightened inner socialist within – their conscience, he would say – forget about Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, and do what’s right for the American people. To Krugman, doing something is better than doing nothing – vastly better, he says.
And if it all can be blamed on George W. Bush, all the better.
But simply “doing something” for the sake of doing something is precisely what 52.7% of Americans did in November, 2008 by electing the enormously under qualified and unmistakably overwhelmed candidate for the world’s most important elective office.
A year and a day into the Messianic Age, it’s all worked out so wonderfully, hasn’t it, Paul?
Posted in Big Government, health care, leftism | Tagged: Barack Obama, health care reform, Paul Krugman | 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 13, 2010
President Obama, this morning
When the government of Iran slaughtered its own people on the streets of Teheran, the President of the United States said nothing. With troops on the ground in Afghanistan – and with the entire world watching to see how the United States would proceed in the “war on necessity” – the President of the United States waited … and waited … and waited. After the terrorist attack on Fort Hood, the President made sure to offer a “shout out” to a nonexistent Congressional Medal of Honor winner at the Tribal Nations Conference, as well as a bunch of thanks to various staffers, before ever mentioning the slaughter of thirteen innocents on American soil by an Islamo-facist. After the near-terrorist attack on Christmas Day, the President took three days to respond.
Not exactly stalwart leadership.
But as we’ve come to see, the President can move fast when the situation warrants it (in his mind) – maybe even faster than a “black man running from the cops,” as Georgetown Professor Michael Dyson put it.
Yesterday, for instance, it took the President only thirty-five minutes – thirty-five minutes – to respond to the devastating earthquake that ravaged Haiti Tuesday. In fact, as of this writing – approximately 11:00AM, Wednesday morning – the President has just concluded public remarks about the tragedy.
He’s all over it.
This is not to say the President shouldn’t say anything. 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.
I must ask … why does Barack Obama not treat the security of his own nation with the same seriousness and urgency that he does an earthquake? Why will he not stand up and speak out against the human evils that threaten his own country with the same fervor and assuredness he reserves for acts of nature? Why do acts of God and conservatives who defend the Constitution stir his passions more than acts of war against the United States?
Fair questions, no?
And incidentally, the word “tragedy” is the right word to use here. The President got it right. The earthquake in Haiti is a tragedy – unlike a terrorist attack, which is an act of evil. There is nothing more infuriating than hearing someone call a terrorist attack a “tragedy.”
So, okay, Mr. President … you promised “unwavering support” to the Haitian people in the aftermath of the earthquake there.
But how about showing a little “unwavering support” for your own nation? How about convincing the American people that you are commited to defending this nation? How about not making matters of national secutiry appear like an annoyance to you? How about acting like a nearly-successful terrorist attack on American soil is actually more serious than finishing the back nine in Hawaii? How about behaving like a Commander-In-Chief?
That would be nice.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Natural Disaster | Tagged: Barack Obama, earthquake, Haiti, response to the earthquake | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 12, 2010
Georgetown Professor Michael Dyson on MSNBC
This has been some post-racial era since the dawn of the Messianic Age, hasn’t it? The topic of race relevancy was supposed to (finally) be an archaic one – or at least one that simply wasn’t going to matter nearly as much anymore – where the significance of American skin tone was going to be irrelevant; where character would finally triumph over color.
The long-desired colorblind American society would, at long last, be upon us once Barack Obama hit the White House and started transforming things – and if, after saving America (and the world) by his mere presence there still existed a surplus of disunity in the country, it could then be rightfully blamed on stubborn conservative racists unwilling to meet the future.
Remember, Obama’s election was “historic,” “groundbreaking,” “game-changing” and whatever other blah-blah-blahs were tendered by the orgasmic media. A new era of understanding, universal love, snuggly puppies and big fat hugs was being ushered in, despite a significant portion of America’s population unwilling to let go of its racist, unjust, slave-owning, prejudice, exploitative past. During the campaign season, news outlets opted to pay minimal attention to Barack Obama’s actual message, choosing instead to latch on to his wonderful sounding platitudes, treating each word he uttered as if it had never before been heard by human beings. They didn’t bother to focus too much on his history (what little we were able to learn), or on his glaring lack of experience (unlike the detailed scrutiny given Sarah Palin). Instead, the media made the 2008 Presidential election all about his skin color – and that alone became the message: he’s black, vote for him, love him, let him take care of things.
It was left’s finest hour.
Barack Obama’s “blackness” made a whole bunch of things okay that probably would have been subjected to far more scrutiny had he been anyone else: an association with a known terrorist, having an anti-American race-baiter for a spiritual mentor, his unambiguous support of redistributing wealth, etc.
After Obama’s election, instead of race issues finally becoming the promised societal dinosaurs they deserve to be, the indomitable crusaders of the left sprung into action, hell-bent on seeking out and proving that racism still existed in this country, lest their own existences be rendered meaningless. In short order, as many had predicted, it became perfectly legitimate to conclude that racism played some of sort of role when one stood up to disagree with Barack Obama. Indeed, in the minds of many, to oppose him was to oppose the election of a black man. Democrat after Democrat told us so.
One thing is clear … Democrats are obsessed with race.
Whether it was Hillary Clinton talking about Ghandi running a gas station in St. Louis, Joe Biden commenting on how “storybook” it was that Barack Obama – a black man – was so clean and articulate, or Sonia Sotomayor talking about the superior judgment capacity of Latinas over whites, Democrats have been no strangers to foot-in-mouth disease. They get away with far more than any conservative ever could because the media presumes to know what exists in the hearts of Democrats – and to liberals, nothing matters more.
Their intentions are good, and that is the bottom line as far as the media is concerned.
Personally, I couldn’t care less what is in a politician’s heart. I don’t care what he or she thinks, and I certainly don’t care what they say in private. I care only about their public actions and statements – not their private ones (unless, obviously, they are breaking the law or are plotting to do so). I care about the deeds of people, not what may or may not be buried in their hearts. Their feelings may matter on a micro level, but on a macro level, their feelings are irrelevant to me.
Let’s say, for instance, a man privately wrestles with feelings of anti-Semitism, for whatever reason. If that man, conflicted as he may be, still manages to do good works that benefit the Jewish community – charity work, for instance – then his feelings are as irrelevant to me as his skin color, his favorite song or what toothpaste he uses. I don’t care. Neither do those in need. His deeds are what matters. Isn’t it more desirable to have someone who may be struggling with their faith or their prejudices doing good for others than to have someone who espouses togetherness and harmony doing nothing? I believe this with ever fiber of my being. As a Jew, it doesn’t matter to me what someone thinks. I care what they do.
Let God deal with what exists in a man’s heart.
What makes people good is their ability to weigh thoughts and feelings privately, whatever they may be, and to ultimately choose to do the right thing. Human beings, indeed, are entitled to their private thoughts and feelings, but they are not entitled to act on those feelings.
In this country, with such travesties as “hate crimes” on the books, private thought is being taken into account where it has no business being. The notion that someone’s feelings can lead to harsher penalties for a crime that is already wrong is outrageous.
By the same token, that someone can say something so disgraceful and contemptible – and get away with it – simply because the media presumes to know what is in one’s heart is indicative of a dangerous trend.
In an appearance yesterday on MSNBC, Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson had the following exchange with the anchor woman (whose name is unknown to me at the time of this posting):
Professor Dyson: Let me tell you this: We should push the President. This President runs from race like a black man runs from a cop. What we have to do is ask Mr. Obama to stand up and use his bully pulpit to help us. He is loathe to speak about race … As a result of that, his disinclination to speak about race means that he won’t even take this teachable moment to help America understand. He shouldn’t do that as a black man, by the way. He should do that because he’s President of the United States of America.
MSNBC anchor: We’re out of time, and I certainly appreciate it, but Professor Dyson, I will have to ask you: Are you going to apologize now for saying that the President runs like a black man from the cops, or are you sticking by that one?
Professor Dyson: I’m sticking by that because the brother runs very well, and he’s running like a brother running from a cop.”
I must give credit where credit is due to the anchor; at least she recognized that the professor’s eyebrow raising comments were, at the very least, worthy of revisiting before ending the segment.
But if, according to Dyson, the President needs to “take this teachable moment” (referring to the now infamous remarks made by Harry Reid) and “help America understand” what is going on – not as a black man, but as Chief Executive – then why was was it necessary to use the “black man running from the cops” metaphor? Why call him a “brother” who “runs very well“?
This is what passes for intellectual discourse at the university level?
“A brother who runs very well“?!
Are you kidding me?
If a white man were President, and Harry Reid made the same sort of comments regarding a high-ranking black politician, would anyone say that the President was like a black man running from the cops?
The fact that such a comment would be made at all demonstrates which side remains obsessed with skin color.
Posted in American culture, Harry Reid, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: "black man running from the cops", Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Michael Eric Dyson, MSNBC, Racism, racist remarks | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 11, 2010
It isn’t that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn’t a bungling, incompetent excuse for a public servant.
It isn’t as if he hasn’t put his foot in his mouth so many times that he assuredly suffers from athlete’s gum.
It isn’t as if conservatives cannot set their watches to the next asinine comment Harry Reid will make.
No, I don’t think Harry Reid is any more or less racist than your average, garden-variety, race-obsessed modern liberal. His comments, published in a new book by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin called Game Change – private comments when they were uttered, incidentally – in which Reid referred to then-Senator Barack Obama as “a light skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one” may have been ill-phrased and a “poor choice of words,” as Reid himself admitted over the weekend, but that isn’t the real issue here. (Isn’t President Obama’s mother white?)
People can choose to waste their time pretending to be outraged over the word “negro,” if they choose – and maybe some are. My grandfather used the word “colored” until the day he died, and he was one of the least racist people I ever knew. I truly don’t believe Reid is a racist – not in the white-hooded sense of the word. He may be a grandiose political joke in almost every sense of the word, but he’s not a cross-burning racist. His uneven talcum powder voice, scraggly mannerism and inability to speak rationally about anything is already enough to warrant his plummeting poll numbers. This latest boner only throws a few cherries onto an already monstrous sundae of idiocy and ineptitude.
The fact is, almost all Democrats are obsessed with race. Why should this be any sort of revelation? The outrage really should exist in how liberals are constantly portrayed as being race-blind when they clearly aren’t. No one brings up race, filters things through the prism of race, or creates policies based on race like liberals.
It isn’t even close.
The real issue is how this Reid thing is being handled by the mainstream media. The in-your-face double standard being applied here is as obvious as a nipple at a belly-button convention. Harry Reid is being given every pass in the world – and then some. Democrats from every nook and cranny of the political muffin are coming out in defense of this wretched little rube with offerings of forgiveness – something that would never have been afforded any Republican had one said anything remotely resembling Reid’s comments.
Outraged liberals are nowhere to be found.
Where are the Democrat calls for his removal from the Senate?
Where is the NAACP?
Where is Maureen Dowd? Is there a man-hating vacation retreat somewhere that she has yet to return from? Maybe she doesn’t have the ability to see dead people, but what about that amazing talent of hers to hear the word “boy” after political commentary? (Maybe it only works when Republicans speak).
I wonder … Does the name Trent Lott ring a bell?
Even the contemptible race-baiter Al Sharpton let Reid slide, saying:
While there is no question that Senator Reid did not select the best word choice in this instance, these comments should not distract America from its continued focus on securing healthcare or creating jobs for its people. Nor should they detract from the unquestionable leadership role Senator Reid has played on these issues or in the area of civil rights. Senator Reid’s door has always been open on hearing from the civil rights community on these issues and I look forward to continue to work with Senator Reid wherever possible to improve the lives of Americans everywhere.
More disturbing than the mainstream media’s default position to snuggle up close to Democrats in peril is their even more mystifying reflex to call upon the always-disgusting and morally reprehensible Al Sharpton whenever something “black” makes the news. If someone somewhere says anything that could even be perceived to be disparaging to people with melanin-rich skin, all eyes in the mainstream media instinctively turn to the race hustler, Al Sharpton – the arbiter of all things “black” (or “negro,” for those who speak Reid) – to see what he thinks.
Next to trying to figure out why Keanu Reeves is a movie star, there is nothing more perplexing.
That this whole thing is America’s lead story is, perhaps, more pitiful than anything else.
Posted in Harry Reid, Racism | Tagged: "light skinned black", "Negro dialect", Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Democrats, Harry Reid, Racism, racist | 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 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 11, 2009
Like a man offering his seat to a lady on a New York City subway train, or seeing Derek Jeter in a Boston Red Sox uniform, there are things in this life that just don’t happen. Like an Obamacratic White House invite to Rush Limbaugh, a liberal pushing a policy position without making someone out to be a victim, and finding someone in the Western Hemisphere whom Tiger Woods has not slept with, there are some things one just doesn’t expect to see.
This is one of those instances.
When George W. Bush left office eleven months ago, his approval numbers had dipped so low, he wasn’t even popular enough to be called unpopular. People on both sides of the aisle were sticking pins in their little George Bush dolls as the Messianic Age approached. A CBS/New York Times poll had Bush’s final approval rating at just 22%. His Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index dipped to -30. The man who caused more Hitler moustaches and swastikas to find their way onto demonstration posters since the days of the Third Reich couldn’t have left Washington quick enough.
With the anointment of Barack Obama, it became difficult to imagine a time when every magazine, newspaper, t-shirt, and button would not be about the new boss. He was everywhere – plastered to every dry surface, pouring from every orifice, heard from every corner of the broadcast media, and even had schools named after him before ever taking the Oath of Office. That his approval numbers would ever dip below 70% seemed as likely as having a national holiday named after Donald Rumsfeld.
But, my, have times changed.
In fact, almost a year into the era of Bamification, the percentage of Americans who would rather see George W. Bush back in charge is only six points less than those who favor Bammy.
Ben Smith from Politico writes:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.
What analysis of the failure of the Obama presidency would be complete without the obligatory, “It Was That Way When I Got Here” approach.
Still, regardless of how the house looked when Obama moved in, his “pointing the finger” routine is wearing thin with the American people. They’re not buying his “Everything Wrong With the Earth is due to George Bush” nonsense anymore. Obama’s astronomical spending spree and deficit escalation has made the idiotic stimulus checks sent out by Bush in 2008 look like a tax cut.
And while there was plenty I openly opposed President Bush on – illegal immigration, TARP, entitlement increases – he was no socialist. He was a terrific wartime leader, an honorable man, a good man, the antithesis of Barack Obama on many levels – hence, the closing gap between one who couldn’t even garner one quarter support of his own nation a year ago and a Messiah from Chicago.
Posted in George W. Buah, politics, Polls | Tagged: 44% prefer Bush over Obama, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Obama buyer's remorse, Obama poll numbers, Obama's slipping popularity, Rather have Bush than Obama | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 10, 2009
So, let’s see if I’ve got this straight …
President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this year based on hope, or change, or whatever. He did nothing to earn it, other than he was not George W. Bush. Embarrassing as it was to be selected – and believe me, it was a joke even to many liberals – he decided he would have to accept the thing in person. That would mean yet another trip out of Washington. (How many excursions does that make since January 20th? He is building up one hell of a carbon credit tab.)
However, the President has decided – much to the chagrin of many Norwegians – that accepting the prize is more than enough. Obama will not be participating in a slew of events normally attended by the Peace Prize winner. That means a ton of cancellations, including a snubbing of the King of Norway.
But is this all about humility? Doubtful.
Or maybe just utter embarrassment? Getting warmer.
A war president accepting the Nobel Peace Prize?
I have no problem with it – other than the prize itself being an enormous sham – but to leftists, this has to be like urinating on a crucifix would be to a Christian.
Gwladys Fouché and Ewen MacAskill of the UK Guardian write:
Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.
The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.
He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.
According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.
“Of all the things he is canceling, I think the worst is canceling the lunch with the king,” said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. “This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy,” she told VG.
It isn’t easy for Bammy to make friends, is it?
When Barack Obama sidesteps an opportunity to hold a press conference and be interviewed for television, it’s time to check and see if there are, in fact, icicles forming in hell.
The committee, however, is taking it all in stride. No biggie, they said.
The paradox of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize only days after committing an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is, undoubtedly, at play in Obama’s mind. The fact that thousands of peaceniks are scheduled to demonstrate in Oslo during his visit there has to be gnawing at him. (Anti-war types staging a protest at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony doesn’t exactly make for a great White House photo op). After all, he’s the anti-war, anti-nuclear guy. He’s the one who will deliver the world from the clutches of war-mongering and capitalism.
Talk about conflicted.
Indeed, being protested at home by swastika-wielding racists and other conservatives is one thing, but in Europe?
That he will be discussing his decision to escalate America’s involvement in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize is, to say the least, an irony too delicious to ignore. Certainly, this isn’t the way he would have staged it.
Personally, I think he should accept the award on behalf of the United States military, as has been suggested by many pundits and wordsmiths over the course of the last several weeks. They are the real peace makers.
Of course, I’d like to win the lottery as well … and jam with Pete Townshend … and have non-moody teenage daughters.
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama-Mania | Tagged: Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo | Leave a Comment »