Friday, December 31, 2010

His Hawaii VayCay will only cost taxpayers
1.5 million (give or take a million or so)


The Lecturer-in-Chief has let us all know that "everyone" must sacrifice during these tough economic times: "Everyone must have some skin in the game," he said when lecturing the country about the greater good. Everyone, that is, except Barack Obama and his lovely wife Michelle. Evidently "sacrifice" is just for the little people, many of whom are enjoying a holiday StayCay while Obama and Company enjoy themselves in Hawaii on the taxpayer's dime, to the tune of almost a million and a half.

Some commenter somewhere asked this question recently, and I think it's a good one: Did the Obamas ever spend "Christmas" vacation in Hawaii before they won the White House lottery? Did they ever before actually pay for their own vacations? Because this Hawaiian family vacation thing is being couched as some sort of Obama family "tradition." Yeah, a tradition that began when Obama could stick the country he has so much love for with the bill.

h/t to Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit

The Washington Examiner details the cost to the taxpayers of the Obama's delightful vacation. Actually, it turns out the 1.5 million price tag doesn't take into account a number of significant costs, upping the total to somewhere in the multi-million dollar range. Nice job, Champ. You obviously (think you) deserve it.

There are more cost estimates from the Hawaii Reporter:
  • $250,000 overtime pay for the Honolulu Police Dept. to guard the president. Who pays for that?
  • an 18-automobile entourage whenever Obama leaves his residence, even for a 5-minute outing to buy shaved ice. Who pays for that?
  • the two-dozen White House staff member group, staying at the Moana Surfrider, descirbed as "exclusive, prestigious, quaint, and expensive." Who pays for that?
  • Before the president and family arrive, homeowners accommodate weeks of inspections by Secret Service agents who can appear at any time. The Secret Service performs ground, sea and air surveillance of the homes and surrounding properties and background checks on the homeowners’ employees, contractors and neighbors. The telephone company spends several days adding secure phone lines underground. The Secret Service disables the homeowners’ security systems, sets up their own and erects some sort of force field that detects movement in the area. Who pays for that?
I am also sick to death of hearing that Obama's living-large vacation/lifestyle is "in line" with other presidents, particularly George Bush. That is simply absurdly laughable. George Bush cutting brush on his ranch in Crawford, TX hardly is cost-equivalent to our fey little Obama golfing in Hawaii. Give me a break.

Update. MooChelle is a total no-show on this photo-embargoed taxpayer-paid-for-extravapalooza. One of the commenters at my favorite website, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog, refers to her as "Our Lady in Hiding." The commenters there are suggesting that we haven't seen any sign of her because the surgery hasn't healed. I do have a question. Why do prominent AfAm women like MooChelle Obama and Orca Winfrey get White Women's nose jobs? Just askin'.

Update #2. Thanks to Granny Jan at Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog for this one, single sighting of MooChelle on VayCay. Obviously not yet ready for prime time. And by the way, who travels around with their DH using earphones? I guess she's as sick of listening to Big Zero as everyone else. Can this marriage be saved? Heh.


Update #3. Seriously, a must-must read from Jeannie DeAngelis at American Thinker: "Foie Gras and Other Healthy Fare." An excellent article. These Obama people are so far beyond "let them eat cake," it's simply astounding that unwashed crowds with pitchforks and brickbats haven't yet taken out the White House windows. They really, really don't get it--and wouldn't give a damn if they did.

President and Mrs. Obama promote one lifestyle for the peons, but when it comes to their lifestyle it’s another story. After awhile it gets to the point where Americans just have to say, “Who cares?”

This New Year’s we should all care, because watching the spectacle that has become the Obama administration coupled with Mama Michelle’s carping over what everyone should or should not be eating has more to do with duplicity and exclusivity than vacations and menu choices.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

I give him all the respect he deserves. . .


Really, what more needs to be said? "Our President," circa 2010.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

The Perky One Gets Her Journalistic Head
Handed to Her by Condi Rice


One of the people I most respect in public life is Condoleezza Rice. One of the people I least respect, in terms of how she does her job as a professional (leaving the personal aside) is Katie Couric. In a recent interview, evidently Couric thought she was interviewing a Sarah Palin-type intellect ("So, what newspapers do you read?") when she interviewed Condi Rice (Dec. 3). Heh. Here is Rice, eating Couric's lunch when Couric "asks" (in one of those questions-that-isn't-a-question) about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war. Rice stops Couric cold, and then proceeds in a verbal smackdown of The Perky One. Perky never had a chance, but what stumps me is that she didn't seem to see it coming. I would have given her a little more credit than that, although why I'm not sure. Couric, you are so out of your league here, I was (almost) embarrassed for you. But you've had this coming for a long time.

A partial transcript follows, but the visual is interesting.




KATIE COURIC: On Iraq, books have been written, as you know, many, many books; documentaries have been made about how intelligence was incorrectly analyzed and cherry-picked to build an argument for war, and memos from that time do suggest that officials knew there was a small chance of actually finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, wait a second, what?

COURIC: (Chuckles.) There are -- there are some things that seem to suggest that in the buildup to the actual war that there was some doubt about that, wouldn't you say --

RICE: No. (Laughter.)

COURIC: Well --

RICE: Actually, I don't agree with that premise at all.

COURIC: You don't?

RICE: No.

COURIC: Even with -- when Tony Blair met with the president in Washington --

RICE: Well, you always -- are you 100 percent sure when you're dealing with an opaque, secretive country in which there have been no inspections for years? No, you're not 100 percent sure. But the preponderance of intelligence analysis -- the preponderance of intelligence analysis from around the world was that he had had weapons of mass destruction. We knew he had used weapons of mass destruction. That was not a theoretical proposition.

COURIC: Right. That's correct.

RICE: He'd used them --

COURIC: Against the Kurds.

RICE: Against the Kurds, against the Shia and against the Iranians. So he'd used them several times. And the preponderance of intelligence was that he was reconstituting or had actually, in the intelligence estimate, reconstituted his biological and chemical capabilities.

There was some debate about how far he had gotten on the nuclear front, some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; others saying it would be several years.

So no, it's simply not the case that there was, if you're in a position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that he did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints that had been put there -- we all know the scandal of oil-for-food -- that he was not as far along in that reconstitution as the intelligence had suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced as an argument that he had fully reconstituted.

RICE: Well, that's a pretty good rationale. (Laughter.) But let me -- let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the -- it's true that you can only -- that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.

So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let's stipulate that.

Now, we didn't worry about weapons of mass destruction particularly in the hands of Russians. The Russians had the hundred thousand -- a hundred times the weapons capability of Saddam Hussein. The problem was that Saddam Hussein had taken the world to war in really destructive wars twice, Iran and the Gulf War in '91; dragged us into conflict again in '98, as President Clinton had responded to the problem there; violated repeatedly Security Council resolutions. The efforts that we were making to keep him in his box, whether it was oil-for-food or the -- or trying to keep his air forces on the ground through flying no-fly zones -- he was shooting at our aircraft every day, he still refused to acknowledge that Kuwait was an independent country, and so on and so on.

This was the most dangerous tyrant in the middle of the Middle East, and he had repeatedly flaunted (sic) the efforts of the international community to control him after '91. And so I think there is an argument that in those circumstances, getting Saddam -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a very good thing.

COURIC: So absent of the presence -- or if you had known at the time that Iraq wasn't as far along with its weapons program as it ultimately turned out to be, would all of those other things you mentioned provide rationale for the war?

RICE: Katie, I'm going to repeat: What you know today can affect what you do tomorrow, but not

COURIC: No, but just put yourself back there --

RICE: I did -- I can't -- I can't --

COURIC: I mean, you're saying that that seemed like a good rationale. Do you think it is?

RICE: I can't speculate on what I would have thought if I had known. I think it's not a fruitful exercise. We knew what we knew, and we made the decisions based on that intelligence and that knowledge.

Now I still believe that even in the absence of finding weapons of mass destruction, the world and the Middle East are much better places without Saddam Hussein. And you always can know what happened as a result of what you did. What you can't know is what would have happened had you not done it.

The Iraq that we're talking about today, our debate about Iraq today -- our concerns about Iraq today are, of course, about continuing violence. But the conversation is whether Shias, Sunnis, Kurds can within their new democratic institutions form the first multi-confessional democracy in the Arab world. That's a really interesting discussion, and it's different than a discussion that we might have been having about whether or not the nuclear competition between Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq is a greater danger than having taken Saddam Hussein out.

COURIC: Do you --

RICE: So I actually think that might have been where we were.

COURIC: Do you think that democracy will hold in Iraq?

RICE: I do. The Iraqis are a tough people, and they're not easy. But I do think that they've got a chance in these new institutions to find a way to resolve their differences without somebody having to oppress somebody else, which has been the whole history of Iraq and in fact the whole history of the Middle East.

It will take some time. The first couple of outcomes may not, in fact, be very pretty to watch. But history has a long arc, and I think they've got a pretty good chance.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

"We don't want to make HER mad"

Well, it's official. We certainly know now, if we didn't before, who wears the pants in Obama's family. This is quite simply the most unbelievable thing I've ever seen a sitting U.S. president do.

Not only did Obama hand over his podium to his pal Bill Clinton, but then after standing around looking bored to be there, he suddenly looked at his watch and said, "I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about a half an hour. So I'm going to take off. You're in good hands. Gibbs will call last question." And Clinton's response? "Please go. . . .we don't want to make HER mad."

So Bill Clinton, evidently playing "President for a Day," stayed around for the next 30 minutes of the press conference on the Tax Bill, answering any and all questions. And no, Gibbsy-boy did NOT "call the last question"--Clinton did that.

So where did Obama have to run off to in such a hurry that he couldn't finish a press conference on the Tax Bill? Why, to his daughter's school party, of course. Could the "First Lady" have gone ahead without him and apologized that he was unavoidably delayed? Evidently NOT. This man has priorities, and they sure as hell don't include running the country. What they do include is keeping wifey happy. Good luck with that one, Champ.

h/t to my favorite blog, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog for the picture.

The guys at HotAir ask the obvious question: "How important is this deal to Obama? Less than a Christmas party and dealing with his spouse's irritation." The incredible shrinking president. I also thought Ace of Spades said it well: "equal parts funny, pathetic, and quite frankly a little scary."

Update. From the New York Post and John Podhoretz. "What happened here has, to my knowledge, never happened. When the president finishes speaking, whenever the  president finishes speaking, the event ends. Period.

"Not any longer.

"Obama can change the rules of etiquette governing his White House if he wants. The problem for him is that those rules of etiquette exist for a reason. They are intended to enforce the standing of the presidency itself. By breaching them, Obama did harm to his own standing, and at a time when he can ill afford to lose any more of his authority."


Sunday, December 05, 2010

I'm taking a little break from the blog for a bit so that I can get some other writing work done. But I'll be back! These fools in the Obama administration may have been slapped down by the November election, but none of us are so naive as to believe that they're done with their dirty tricks. We'll be watching!

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Bobby Jindal Mocks Obama's Security Strategy



h/t GatewayPundit
4 Million Hits . . . and Counting

Food court flash mob recording of Hallelujah Chorus

Julian Assange and Wikileaks

Of course yesterday's news was dominated by this assclown Assange.

Here's an excellent post from my friends at Missourah.com: "Julian Assange 2, USA 0."

Then there's this today from HotAir: "Suddenly Obama Administration Looking into Criminal Charges for Wikileaks." Seriously, what's their damned hurry?

Then there's this from American Thinker: "Cablegate: Obama's Katrina Times Ten."

Here's something from NewsBusters: "Krauthammer Urges Prosecution of WikiLeaks’ Journalistic Collaborators."

Monday, November 29, 2010

Obama Economic Kabuki Theater

Jim Heft at Gateway Pundit has this today about Obama "saving" the economy money by freezing the salaries of government workers (salaries that are right now at an all-time high). So instead of a reduction in force of government workers, Odimbulb is going to enact a two-year pay freeze on salaries of people who already make twice as much as people doing similar jobs in the private sector. Sweet.

Rush Limbaugh today called the scheme "bogus." I guess that's because he can't say "bullshit" on the air.

Friday, November 26, 2010

MooChelle Reminds Us,
"Desert Is Not a Right; We Don't Want to Hear the Whining"




h/t to Granny Jan, commentor extraordinaire at Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog


















h/t to one of my favorite posters here

Monday, November 22, 2010

"Don't Touch My Junk"

There's a meltdown happening with airport TSA security. Here's a YouTube video, found on Drudge, of the massive lines at O'Hare. Wait until Wednesday.



One passenger chose to strip rather than undergo a TSA "patdown." He was arrested.

Gloria Allred says she enjoyed having her private parts touched; Hillary Clinton, not so much.

Here's Bobby Jindal, asking a simple question: "Why is it that the Obama administration is more preoccupied with protecting the rights of terrorists, while subjecting law-abiding citizens to these intrusive body searches?" Why, indeed?

The TSA horror stories that are out there are legion. Here's one: "Please Remove Your Prosthetic Breast."

Charles Krauthammer has written one of the best pieces out there, as usual, about this issue: "Don't touch my junk," Washington Post.

Here's a YouTube video, "Heightened Airport Security"--h/t to one of my favorite followers.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Epic Failure at the Justice Department

"It's time for Eric Holder to go." Yesterday Ahmed Ghailani was acquitted in civilian court in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania on all but one of 281 counts: his conviction was on conspiracy to destroy U.S. buildings; he was acquitted of killing 224 people, including 12 Americans.

And what did the DOJ have to say about it? "We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison. . . ." Really? The DOJ is pleased? Even though this is a man who confessed to the murder of over 200 people--they're pleased. Well, I'll be go to hell, as a man I know used to say. Ed Morrisey has the story over at HotAir this morning.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Epic Failure in Asia

This is what happens when you go around the world trashing your own country for two years--people decide to agree with your assessment, and they don't respect you. Nice going, Champ.

The WSJ is calling Obama's performance at the G-20 meeting in Seoul an "embarrassment": "Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week's G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can't think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded (or, in O's word--"shellacked") by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth."

Here's the headline from HotAir: "Left, Right agree: Obama's G-20 performance worst ever": "In 2008, we warned about the dangers of putting a man in the White House with no executive, military, diplomatic, or private-sector experience. It should shock no one to find that American leadership has utterly vanished on the international stage when we elect someone incapable of providing that leadership."

As HotAir points out, even the San Francisco Chronicle isn't happy with The Won: "Obama can't get G-20 nations to follow his lead": "Sheallacked at home, shellacked abroad. President Obama's Asia trip is extending a losing streak with the latest setback--a refusal by other major financial powers to follow his lead to revive the global economy." What a smart, smart thing on our part to elect someone to the Executive Office who has never led anything. What intellectually honest person can possibly be surprised by any of this?

This one is from the Heritage Foundation: "Obama Hits the Trifecta of Failure in Seoul": "Obama's decision to allow the talks to collapse--and make no mistake, the decision was made at the presidential level--was a colossal blunder. It reflects serious shortcomings in his strategic thinking since it will have dramatic repercussions for U.S. foreign policy."

One wag is calling Obama "America's first half-term president." It would be funny if it weren't such a disaster.

And then there's Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog, who, thank God, is always good for a laugh: "Honey, I Shrunk the Presidency!" Thank you, MOMB, for keeping the laughs going in this most dreadful of times.


From a MOMB commenter: "Is BOzo playing some sort of Japanese game in that first picture--say, 'Capture the black tile square?'"

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Obama's Failure: Vanity?

Jonathan V. Last at The Weekly Standard has written a must-read article: "American Narcissus: The vanity of Barack Obama." Why has Barack Obama failed so spectacularly? Is he too dogmatically liberal or too pragmatic? Is he a socialist, or an anticolonialist, or a philosopher-president? Or is it possible that Obama’s failures stem from something simpler: vanity. Politicians as a class are particularly susceptible to mirror-gazing. But Obama’s vanity is overwhelming. It defines him, his politics, and his presidency.

The article is priceless.


"Are we having fun yet?" Here's a photo I found today posted on my favorite blog: Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog. Holy Cow, does Zero look like a little bag of crap here, or what? Jeeze, this full-time job thing is hard.

Report on the overseas trip for Big Zero from our friends at MOMB:

10 days, 4 countries, zero trade agreements, zero agreement on trade imbalance, zero commitment from China to re-value the yuan, zero support from the other G-20 leaders, zero nuclear agreements. . . .BIG ZERO! Way to go, Champ. Seems that the world doesn't love you so much anymore.

If there's anyone out there who is positive this clown is going to run for re-election in 2012, I would recommend that they take a close look at that picture. Good Lord, we know that people age faster in the Office of the President, but this guy is looking like he's not going to make it to tomorrow.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

The O's Are a Pure Mess

What is wrong with this woman? Michelle Obama has 27 minions to cover her every move: makeup artists, dressers, pressers--you name it. And she goes out in public looking like this? Good Lord. What First Lady ever looked like such a mess--ever? Thanks for doing such a great job of representing your country overseas, Michelle.

Update. A great blog about FLOTUS "fashion" from  a self-proclaimed "fashionista who is sick of the sycophantic suck-up media and mindless MO-bots healping false praise on our flabulous FLOTUS for her fashion faux pas"--Worst.Dressed.FLOTUS. . .EVER.

There's an article at American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt: "A Broken President." It's seriously worth the read. Hunt suggests that we are a nation without a president: when we consider the modern version of the president as the inspirational leader of a free people, as the advocate and defender of America's greatness around the globe, as the champion of the oppressed and dispossessed while exhorting the self-confidence of individual achievement, the presidency under Obama has shriveled up, been rendered virtually irrelevant.

And of course, where was the commander-in-chief today on Veterans' Day? He was AWOL, naturally.
God Bless Our Veterans on Veterans' Day

Thursday, November 04, 2010

You think '10 was tough? Check out '12

That title comes from an article at THE HILL, no less.

In two years, Democrats will have 21 seats up for grabs, compared to only 10 for Republicans. Also, the two "independents" who caucus with the Democrats will be up for reelection (Lieberman and avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders from Vermont). Of course, says the article, it depends on the mood of the public.

Mood? I'll give them MOOD, where here in Missouri a House seat was stolen by Russ Carnahan (Dem--do I even have to say it) from challenger Ed Martin. Here's the freakin' MOOD of the public: "We're Still Advancing," written by Bill Hennessy at the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition. Go here to read about Russ Carnahan's "Mathematically Impossible Midnight Surge of Votes." The election between Carnahan and Martin is being contested. Stay tuned.

Oh, and here's a special little "Valentine" from Jim Hoft at gatewaypundit for Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) who is up for reelection in 2012.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Postings re: The Election around the blogosphere

My favorite so far comes from Michelle Malkin: "Take Your Olive Branch and Shove It, Democrats": "Here is an ironclad certainty: It's too little too late for the antagonist-in-chief to paper over two years of relentless Democratic incivility and hate toward his domestic 'enemies.'"

Here's one from Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog: Post Election Blues (and Reds)--"we'll just have to get used to the Republican shift from the Party of 'No' to the party of 'Stop it!'"

From The Foundry, the blog at The Heritage Foundation: "Morning Bell: Get to Work." "The American people have a collective wisdom, and they expressed it yesterday. They took a stand and decided on a new direction because continuing down the path we're currently on would mean the end of the American Dream."

An interesting article from the NYT's opinion pages: Ross Douthat, "Was It Worth It?" "Was the 111th Congress's flurry of legislative activity worth the backlash it helped to create? Were the health care bill and the stimulus worth handing John Boehner the gavel in the House of Representatives? Did it make sense to push and push and then keep on pushing, even after the polls and town halls and special-election outcomes made it clear the voters were going to push back?" This guy ends the article by telling Republicans that they "need to keep a lid on their euphoria." Maybe he ought to see to his own house before he tells someone else what they "ought" to be doing. Just sayin.'

Here's a very nice exegesis of yesterday's Obama Presser from Ed Morrissey at HotAir. As he points out, the press actually played a little hardball with their questions yesterday, and no one asked what Obama found the most enchanting about the midterm elections. Heh.
House Wins . . . and so does the American public

Buh-bye, Nancy. Republicans picked up 66 seats in the House last night, a historic win.

And don't forget the governorships--a pickup of 9 last night for Republicans vs. one for the Dims. Fox interactive map here.

I'll let Allen West speak
for everyone who won last night


Representative Allen West, newly minted congressman from Florida. "A nation goes to war against an ideology. We are against something that is a totalitarian, theocratic, political ideology, and it is called Islam." This guy has no confusion about who the enemy is.

"The president said, not too long ago, that this was about punishing his enemies. He also talked about how this will be about going into hand-to-hand combat. Well I've gotta tell you something. If you want to pick a fight with a U.S. Army paratrooper, bring it on."





Monday, November 01, 2010

Voter Tuesday Images


Ed Morrissey over at HotAir: "Welcome to Accountability Day, where the American electorate passes judgment on their governing class."

We remember in November. Today it's our turn, Nancy.



In my very, very, very Leftist town (in Missouri, no less), where my Gadsden flag is the only one flying for miles around, there is NO WAITING this morning at my polling place. In 2008, the line at 7:00 a.m. went all the way back to the end of the church parking lot where the mood was like a tailgating party. Today? Not so much. Heh.


If you vote today, thank a Service Person that the polls are open for business in the U.S. of A.
"American Hero"



h/t to Lynn II, a commenter at my favorite blog, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Passage to India

Almost immediately after the election on Tuesday, Obama will be running out of town; and not only out of town, but out of the country. He'll take forty aircraft, including both Air Force 1 planes, six armored cars, three Marine One helicopters, enough "stuff" to establish not one but two Secret Service command centers, and as Clarice Feldman puts it, "apparently his entire staff of cooks, wardrobe masters, make up artists, dressers, hairstylists, lap dogs, sniffer dogs, food tasters, czars, his wife, two kids, and the teleprompter. It's not altogether clear whether this is a stealth invasion or a self-imposed exile."

David Paul Kuhn asks the question in his article, "After Election, Obama to Flee US": before Obama goes on his longest tour overseas this year, almost 12 days, will he face the press after Tuesday's election? "It would be stunning if Obama does not face the inquisition. It's inside baseball. It's also, however, what's done. The gravity of the moment calls for sincere comment. It would look worse to cower from the spotlight and split town."

After their midterm elections, and after speaking to the press, both Clinton and Bush left the country. Reagan didn't. He spoke to reporters, and he wrote in his diary later that day, according to Kuhn: "Did a press conference in Rose Garden re the election returns. I'm sure they were sorry I was so happy."

As Doug Powers says at Back to Basics, "The most dangerous place to be standing just after the November election will be between President Obama and the nation's emergency exit doorway."

Big Zero, voting with his feet. While he's gone, the "intellectual pragmatist" can contemplate how life is going to change for him: he will have lost his sycophantic Senate Majority Leader and his House majority. Good luck with that, Barry. Buh-bye and good riddance.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Obama: OneBigAssMistAke


















Thanks to one of my favorite blogs, Seraphic Secret, for the images.














h/t for the image to The Malcontent

I hope to be first in line to vote on Tuesday.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

"An Open Letter from a Democrat to
Rush Limbaugh and his listeners"


It might surprise readers of this blog that I used to be a registered Democrat; in fact, I voted for Bill Clinton--twice. There's a fascinating open letter on the website HillBuzz from a lifelong Democrat, the editor-in-chief of HillBuzz.org, who speaks of the Civil War in the Democrat ranks that's been raging since May 31st 2008, when "scores of . . . Obama flunkies took off their masks and revealed the full extent of the Leftist coup that had taken over the party. This was the day when the DNC took delegates Hillary Clinton won in Michigan away from her and handed them to Obama." Kevin DuJan, the writer of this letter, tells of millions of alienated Democrats who are mad as hell and determined to "expose the party and literally burn it to the ground for the good of the country." Who knew? Because of course, as the writer of the letter says, none of this is being reported by the lapdog Obama Leftist media.

"[W]e former Democrats saw just how insane these people [Obama supporters] really are and we are now doing everything we can, behind the scenes, to use everything we know about the Democrat Party to collapse it from within." Wow. This guy says that these former Dems who are out to destroy their (former) party are "America-loving, middleclass, Jacksonian/Clintonian Democrats" who want nothing to do with what's going on now in Obama's Democrat party. "It's crystal clear that being a patriotic American who loves this country is intellectually incompatible with being a Democrat. If you love America and want it to prosper, the Democrat Party is at absolute odds with everything we need for a thriving, successful economy."

This is a long letter, but it's worth reading all the way to the end. The part that really does my heart good is where the guy goes into his rant against ANYONE who voted for ObamaCare: "we are truly committed to making sure the Claire McCaskills out there get everything that is coming to them for all their service to Obama and his agenda. Hear that, Ben Nelson . . . voters will be coming for you. You and everyone like you. Every last one of you. If you voted for Obamacare, you are politically dead but may not know it . . . and it is your own fault. Being intensely stupid is no defense. If you were a YES on anything related to Obamacare you are going to be defeated . . . if not in 2010, then in the primaries in 2012. If you survive those, you will be taken down in the 2012 general election. Your political career is over . . . dummy."

Update. So Rush Limbaugh saw the letter to him, and he replied on his radio show yesterday. The transcript is here on his website. Here's a little bit of what Limbaugh said yesterday:

"[T]heir open letter to me is for me to understand what they think the media is ignoring and what a lot of people know and ignore. There are basically two things going on: There are scandals brewing and have been brewing in the Obama administration that the Republicans are gonna zero in on after they win next Tuesday or sworn in in January, and that the Democrat Party at large needs to be brought down--and it is--because there are Democrats in droves leaving the party. . . . I mean, we remember Ronald Reagan was a proud Democrat once. He said the party left him. Bill Bennett was a proud Democrat once. They're called 'neocons' now. A lot of them were Democrats at one point."

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Dem to Obama: He can
"take his endorsement and shove it"

I would say that things aren't going exactly swimmingly on the campaign trail for Dear Leader. Campaigning was the one thing he was supposed to be able to actually do well, but things don't really seem to be going all that well for him out on the road. He looks like a tired piece of crap, and this is out on the campaign trail where he's supposedly the most "up" and "energized." Right.

Things didn't go so well for Big Zero in his one stop of the day, Rhode Island, of all places, which should have been a friendly place for him to land. Like Frank Caprio (did I say he was a Democrat?), who said when he heard that Obama had declined to endorse his candidacy for governor that Obama can take his endorsement and "shove it." If Caprio is successful in his election bid, he'll be the first Democrat governor in Rhode Island in 16 years. He's running against Independent candidate, former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee.

Obama's trip to Rhode Island continued with another great moment. Later the same day, after the "shove it" remark from his fellow Democrat, Obama gave a speech in which he said this about Republicans, again pulling out his greatly overused driving metaphor: "We can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back."

Is this guy SERIOUS? Did "our president" just say that Republicans have to sit IN THE BACK (of the bus)? This is a man who fundamentally misunderstands the role in which he was elected to serve: as president of all the people. It simply isn't possible that this maroon doesn't realize the image he creates with that kind of language. Rosa Parks, the "mother of the freedom movement," would be so proud, wouldn't she? I wonder when he'll call for separate drinking fountains for Republicans?

Done. This guy is done.

Update. 2 Faces of Obama: The Uniter vs. The "Let's Punish Them" Divider



Update #2. Guess whose approval rating is at 37%, an all-time low?

Update #3. Charles Krauthammer article: "Obama Underappreication Syndrome"--read about Obama's "scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles: The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can't think straight"--and therefore votes Republican. Big Zero, you are a desperate tool.

Update #4. Charles Krauthammer has another article that's worth the read (as his stuff always is): "The great campaign of 2010." He points out that Obama urges Hispanics to go to the polls to exact political revenge on their enemies--"This from a president who won't even use 'enemies' to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan."

Monday, October 25, 2010

Obama Taking His Crutch to India,
(update) But Not His Headgear


Big Zero is incapable of speaking without the teleprompter--really. He will be taking the teleprompter with him to India where they will have completed a makeover of India's Central Hall to accommodate Zero's stunningly pathetic incompetence. What person who speaks in any public forum with even a modicum of skill can't handle a 20-minute speech without a teleprompter? The teleprompter will be used in India's Central Hall for the first time in its history.

Do we remember? This dud was sold to us as the greatest communicator evah! The earth was going to be healed, the seas were going to rise (or was that recede, I can't remember), because Obama would speak. Meh. This man is a joke, but unfortunately the joke's on us.


Update. ObamaTeam has decided that Dear Leader won't be visiting the Indian Golden Temple because he would have to wear a head covering. The headline at NPR is, "Obama To Skip Indian Temple; Aides Fear Muslim-ish Images." Really? The smartest team evah can't figure this one out? They should ask for suggestions--I'm sure someone would have an answer to Zero's headgear problem. Now he's a worldwide joke. Hooray for the U.S. of A. and all of the morons who voted for this clown in 2008.

Image credit: rediff.com

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The President of All the Country?
Hell no, it's the BO & MO Show


I found this video over on Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog: "the Homecoming King and Queen need your help to ensure that their hand chosen candidates get elected to their court." Snort.

"Hello everybody, it's Barack and pause (and I swear he almost said, "uh") Michelle."  This is stunningly inane. Is it just me, or is "Barack" looking like a piece of crap these days. Although it may just be the lighting used in the video. Someone at the the Mirror Blog pointed out that they upped the lighting to make it appear as if BO & MO are the same color.

Here is Barack, desperately trying to "connect" to the "folks." Nice try, Champ. Fail.



The commenters at the Mirror Blog are hilarious--thank God, because these days we all need a good laugh.

Wow . . . is it SUPPOSED to look as if it was shot in one of those old photo booths at Woolworths?

Introducing himself and Michelle as if no one knows who they are . . . reminds me of the Mouseketeers. Butt where are the ears?

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Campaigner-In-Chief

I guess he doesn't have anything better to do in Washington, although maybe the country is better off when this guy is campaigning rather than working as POTUS. They're calling this the "pump-up nervous Democrats tour." There were pictures of Obama yesterday out on the campaign tour posted on the Drudge Report. They're gone this morning, but Rush Limbaugh has them. Wow, The One is a freak. He's angry and confused and can't figure out why he's getting criticized. We know that narcissists do not deal well with criticism, but wow, this is must have been freaky photo day--he looks like he's frothing at the mouth. As Limbaugh said, "I have never seen a picture of an American president look like that. . . . It is strange that these pictures would be released." Wow. "Strange" doesn't quite cover it.


Over at American Thinker, Clarice Feldman suggests that Obama inhabits a "dream world" since he's suggesting out on the campaign trail that if the Dems lose their congressional majority, the Republicans will have to work with him. Oh, hahaha, did the Dims "work with" Bush when they took over in 2006? I don't think so. She also posts the hilarious history of Obama's comments about "shovel-ready" projects, which of course he recently said he now does not believe in--"there's no such thing as shovel-ready projects." Way to figure that one out, Champ. Our most intelligent president evah!

The Weekly Standard has posted an interesting article by Noemie Emery--"Fault Lines: The president's apologists look for scapegoats." Things were bad, and one had to admit it, but at the same time one couldn't blame him. He was in charge, but not really responsible; he was around, but somehow apart from his government. So the effects of his actions--recession, malaise, distress, unemployment--could never be traced to their source.

The Washington Times has an article about where Obama is taking his campaign: "Obama campaign trail shuns hostile areas, picks only 9 friendly states." Most of the places he'll be campaigning are states that he won by at least 10 percentage points. He'll stay away from Indiana and West Virginia, where a visit from him "would probably ensure the defeat of Joe Manchin," Democrat governor who is seeking the Senate seat of the late Robert Byrd. One guy posting over at hillbuzz writes that has never seen so many billboards and homemade signs in yards. Even in a district that is heavily union, the yard signs for the Republican hugely outweigh those for the Democrat. Instead Obama will go to Washington State and California where his approval ratings, unlike the rest of the country, are just above 50%, which contrasts to his national approval rating which is somewhere around 44%.

Seriously, Big Zero is losing it, in more ways than one. Gateway Pundit is reporting that out on the campaign trail on Monday Obama implored his supporters to hand over more $$ (has he seen the recent unemployment figures?) to help the 15 Senate seats that are "up for grabs" on November 2. If Republicans pick up 10 Seats on election day, they will win back the majority. Fifteen Senate seats up for grabs? Predictions at this point would say that the Dems will probably keep their majority in the Senate. The Wall Street Journal has a map of the House, Senate, and governors' races that are considered closest in their article, "Democrats Retrench as GOP Pulls Away." Democrat strategists acknowledged they are abandoning a dozen House seats the party now holds, as they try to salvage their majority by shoring up candidates with better chances. The Republicans need a net gain of 39 seats to win a majority in the House. In October the NYT was reporting that Republicans could pick up as many as 78 House seats, although a net gain of about 50 seats seems more likely.

Update. Oh, excuse me. Politico is reporting this morning that 99 Democrat-held House seats are in danger of turning Republican. According to the article, more than a quarter of those facing competitive races are Freshman Democrats. Flyover country seems to be a particular problem for the Dims: "If there is a particular trouble spot for Democrats, it is the Midwest, where 31 seats are at risk." Oh those damn bitter clingers!

Friday, October 15, 2010

Meltdown

The New York Times Magazine has an interesting article on the Obama presidency: "Education of a President." It's worth the read. The article's author, Peter Baker, writes: "this is an administration that feels shellshocked. Many officials worry [that is, White House officials] that the best days of the Obama presidency are behind them. They talk about whether it is time to move on."

And evidently it is--time to leave, that is. Team Obama knows which way the wind is blowing for Big Zero, and they're getting out while the getting is good. The rats are leaving the sinking ship: Leaving or already gone are General James Jones, the national security advisor, Rahm Emmanuel, chief of staff, almost the entire economics team, including Christina Romer and soon Larry Summers. Axelrod will go. Robert Gibbs may go. Defense Sec'y Robert Gates is leaving. Where's Hillary Clinton with her Reset button when they need her?

Even the campaign trail isn't going so well for Our Hero. Normally campaigning is something Obama knows how to do. Instead he brilliantly decides to go out and tell his supporters to stop sulking, and 36 attendees at a Maryland rally collapse from illness--a far cry from the days when Obamabots used to swoon at his feet. He's actually getting less-than-softball questions from--people who voted for him, questions like, "Why should we vote you back in?" That question came from an MTV crowd. Ouch.

But never fear, the perpetual Obama Campaign Machine has finally brought out its secret weapon: Lady Michelle joined the midterm campaign trail on Wednesday. Although--oops--by Thursday she had already violated Illinois law with some illegal electioneering when she stopped off to vote in ChicagoLand. But come on, can we really expect a Harvard-trained lawyer to understand every tiny nuance of the law? Moo-chelle is scheduled to continue campaigning in Colorado, Connecticut, New York, Washington state, and California, plus this weekend she will appear with The Won in Ohio. Be still my heart.

Not sure what happened to those toned arms--those "guns"--we used to hear so much about. Ick. Won't any of the 27 people on her personal staff tell her that the bare armed thing isn't merely unattractive--in this case it's just totally gross. But I guess when you've been named the MOST POWERFUL WOMAN ON EARTH, if you want to flash your ugly pits, you can. 

Evita Peron she's not, but I guess no one around her will tell her that. Put on a jacket, woman.


Follow Evita Michelle's exploits on the campaign trail along with Michelle Obama's Mirror, aka MOTUS (Mirror of the United Status) at RightNetwork: "FLOTUS hits the road for POTUS."

Update. Michelle Obama electioneering in polling place. HotAir says Gibbsy was asked it about it yesterday, and in characteristic smart-guy fashion ended up laughing it off. Gibbs said something like, Come on, she's well liked and she probably didn't know what she was doing. When did "she didn't know what she was doing" and "she's well-liked" become a defense for breaking the law? Although I'm thinking she'll rip his head off the next time she sees him. So here's what it is, Moo-chelle: Polling places are off limits for campaigning on election day. Period. But we all know the attitude: "Those laws are for thee butt not for me."

Monday, October 11, 2010

"Have these people no shame?"

Updates below.

Evidently not. That's a quotation from Karl Rove, responding to the Dems unsubstantiated claims that the Chamber of Commerce is taking money from foreign interests and using it to "steal our democracy." The Dems have offered no evidence that the Chamber is using foreign money to influence the elections, according to the NYT. But why would they let a silly little thing like the "truth" get in the way at this point. Said David Axelrod, senior advisor to Obama, on one of the Sunday news shows, when asked if he has any evidence of secret foreign funds being used to influence the election: "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?" Other Dem officials are suggesting that "if the chamber wants to clear this up" they can open their books. So you level a charge at someone, and then put the burden of proof on them to prove it's not true? Are you kidding me?

Can Obama get any more pathetic? The Dems can't run on what the Obama administration has done with the economy or with health care or with foreign policy. So instead they come up with an accusation about Republicans and foreign money, as Big Zero told a Philadelphia crowd of predominantly African-Americans: "Don't let them hijack your agenda. The American people deserve to know who's trying to sway their elections, and you can't stand by and let the special interests drown out the voices of the American people." Is this really appropriate rhetoric for the President of the United States? Will someone please tell him he's not CANDIDATE Obama anymore? This is a guy who really, fundamentally, doesn't get the job he's supposed to be doing.

Evidently Obama has nothing better to do in his day job as POTUS, so for the next three weeks, according to Politico, he will be spending much of his time on the road campaigning, spending a boatload of our tax money flying around on Air Force (We) Won.

Here's the newest attack ad from the DNC. This is a pathetic new low, even for this crowd.



Oh, and P.S. How's the investigation coming on where all of Obama's money came from in the 2008 election? Oh, there is no investigation on that? My bad. The very idea that the Dims would attack the Republicans for doing exactly what they did to win the 2008 presidential election is just deliciously funny. Michael Barone at the Washington Examiner has an article on this very topic: "Pot calls kettle. . . ."
This looks like a matter of projection, since it's well documented that the 2008 Obama campaign did not put in place address verification software that would have routinely prevented most foreign donations. In effect they were encouraging donations by foreign nationals.
P.S. #2. I thought everyone around the world LOVES Big Zero and his policies. So why are the Dims accusing "foreigners" of stealing this election for the Republicans? The video implies that money is coming from China to steal our democracy. China loves Obama and what he's done for this country's debt. If anything, foreign money should pour into the Dem coffers. And why in the world would the White House alienate the Chamber of Commerce. I'm really not getting the logic of the argument and the strategy here, not even a little.

Here's something from one of the commenters at HotAir:

Obama is a Muslim – hey Axelrod, prove that he isn’t!
Obama is not a natural born American citizen – hey Axelrod, prove that he isn’t!
Obama was a C student at best in college – hey Axelrod, prove that’s not true!
Obama was accepted into college as a foreign student – hey Axelrod, prove that’s not true!
We could do this all day…

And here's a quote from Andrew Breitbart's Big Government: "You are having a really bad election cycle if you are a Democrat and the NYT isn't buying your spin."

My friends at Missourah.com have a nice post on the same topic.

Update. It's the McCarthyism, stupid--and it's not going to work. HotAir has an update: "Obama's attack on Chamber of Commerce backfiring."
This is an administration that apparently has never learned the difference between being a political campaign and serving in the government.  In the former situation, this would constitute slander, which is bad enough.  When it comes from the government, it’s a form of tyranny — an attempt to use the power of government to silence dissent.
Update #2. A must-read--Rich Lowry's article in the National Review Online: "Obama's McCarthyite Moment." Lowry: "Obama has become a master in the art of self-diminishment. He started at George W. Bush (who is out of office but at least a former president), descended to John Boehner (the House minority leader people have barely heard of) and finally alighted on Karl Rove (who is a political operative and pundit).

Update #3. "Obama's Un-Presidential Despicable Race Baiting," by Lloyd Marcus at American Thinker. At Sunday's Philadelphia rally, in front of an African-American crowd (cynical demographics, but I digress), Obama said that the Republicans are "counting on black folks staying home."

Or how about this one by Stuart Schwartz--"Obama: Our First Post-Racial Failure." Schwartz says, "Failure is no longer the sole preserve of white presidents and Caucasian New York Times publishers." He says that Obama is the nation's first post-racial failure "and we are all the stronger for it." A great read.

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Repeal ObamaCare

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said, "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"? Well, they did and we are. What a clusterf**k of "unintended" consequences this thing is turning out to be. Every day, it seems, we hear some new disaster in the making coming our way because of this crap bill.

Just yesterday we heard that the 3M Company is planning to dump retirees from their existing medical coverage. 3M has 23,000 retirees, many of them likely living in Minnesota. Gee, do you think these people are going to be motivated to vote in the upcoming midterm election? Unintended consequences bite, baby.

Then of course last week the WSJ reported that McDonald's has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers. Subsequently, the world's largest hamburger chain has denied the report that they will drop health care coverage, and of course the lapdog media like ABC News is reporting that McDonald's and the Obama administration are "firing back" at the report as being untrue.

What is true is what was in the memo from McDonald's that was sent to federal officials:

“Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants,” said McDonald’s memo, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “It would deny our people this current benefit that positively impacts their lives and protects their health—and would leave many without an affordable, comparably designed alternative until 2014.”

Then there's the "unintended" consequence of insurance premiums going up with the passage of ObamaCrap, some going up as much as 16%. Big Zero is going around the country boasting that ObamaCare will provide "free" preventive care such as mammograms and colonoscopies. Free? Only children believe that you can get anything for free. So whether you use it or not, you'll now be paying for things like smoking cessation programs.

ObamaCare is a looming train wreck, even worse, says an editorial in the Washington Examiner, than critics thought. And what we're seeing is that politicians are running away from this crap bill as fast as they can. According to the Weekly Standard, nearly half (48%) of all independent voters said that even if a candidate otherwise held perfect views (in the eyes of the voter), they still wouldn't vote for them if they disagreed with them on health care reform. "Health care reform," is the most important issue to independents. And 83% of the respondents said the candidate's position on health care reform must be to oppose ObamaCare. "So if you support ObamaCare, you've just lost 40% (83% of 48%) of the independent vote--before any other issue is even addressed."

Congressman Joe Barton (TX, Republican) member of the House Energy and Finance Committee, will likely be that committee's chair after the midterm elections when the GOP takes over the House. He has said that repealing ObamaCare is at the top of his agenda and has outlined a no holds barred strategy for repealing and defunding the destructive aspects of ObamaCrap, specifically mentioning employer mandates.



Obama has said he welcomes this fight. Well, bring it, buddy. The American Thinker has a piece about ROCPAC, which stands for "Repeal ObamaCare PAC," a federally registered PAC that supports only candidates for U.S. Congress who pledge to use their vote in Congress to repeal the monstrosity known as ObamaCare. To learn more about ROCPAC, go to repealobamacarepac.com.

Monday, October 04, 2010

Bye, Rahm

William Kristol eviscerates Rahm Emanuel in his recent editorial in the Weekly Standard, "The Chief Water Bug Departs." Writes Kristol, "Emanuel is a tough guy who wasn't mature enough to bring good judgment to Obama's [White House]." Ouch. Kristol says that Emanuel's "only memorable comment," --"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"--"may well go down in history as the most foolish and damaging pseudo-clever statement ever made by a chief of staff." Heh.

Friday, October 01, 2010

Signs of Change in Europe

Update: Link to Geert Wilders' speech in Berlin.

I like to keep track of what's going on in the Netherlands, since that's where my father's family is from--that's where the "Roorda" comes from in "roordawrite." I have family who live there still, and as one cousin told me, most of them "vote left."

However, there does seem to be a new resurgence of the right in the Netherlands. Islam critic Geert Wilders (in photo) has just announced his approval of a new Right leaning Dutch coalition government that will include his Freedom Party as a member. Essentially that means the center-right has agreed to a coalition with the far-right.

The Freedom Party has called for stricter control of immigration along with an end to policies that have resulted in what are essentially Muslim "no go" ghettoization of complete neighborhoods and increased youth violence in the Netherlands. "A new wind will blow in The Netherlands," declared Wilders. His party would ban the burqa; he also campaigns on putting an end to the building of new mosques. "The immigration policy . . . is aimed at limiting and reducing the arrival migrants with few prospects."

Wilders is putting together an international campaign to stop the Islamization of the West called the International Freedom Alliance. Says Wilders, "It is not just a Dutch problem that our freedom is being curtailed and Islam is advancing, it is a problem for the entire free West. . . ." He says that in many countries, this campaign will not be applauded, "but that must not be a reason not to do this."

Wilders will take his Freedom Alliance to Berlin on October 2. A website called Tundra Tabloids has more information about Wilders in Germany here. An anti-immigrant wave seems to be sweeping across Europe: Europen Post-WWII "tolerance" seems to have passed its peak in places like Germany, France, and Italy. The Swedes are calling it a "common sense" aversion to Muslim immigration.

There are also signs in other places in Europe that the people have had it with the socialists. Sweden's long-ruling Social Democrats recently went down to their worst defeat since 1914, with the entry of the "hard-right anti-immigrant" party into Swedish parliament.