Friday, April 29, 2011

The Document Is an Amateurish Fake, So Why?

Maybe it's because the Boy King thinks it's funny to jerk half the country around. I dunno. If you listen to him talk about the issue (see below), you can tell he's having an hilarious time with all of it. Obviously he has no reason to put this issue to rest, since the more he makes his political enemies look like "crazy racist birthers," the better for his base. Plus, I'm sure he's hoping that Independents will jump on the "those ridiculous birthers" bandwagon as well.

Someone said to me today that they wouldn't be surprised it ObamaTeam (TM) photoshopped a document that's almost identical to the one he's holding on to, just to make his political enemies appear even more unreasonable. The other possibility is that there really is something on the original that he doesn't want people to know about. Or, the original doesn't exist.

This fake document that was put on the White House website does NOTHING to prove the authenticity of a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate. And they know it.

Anyway, it's a fake, for what it's worth. h/t from one of my followers who is a Peter Boyles fan in Denver.

My name is Bond--James Bond

My name's Barack Obama. I was born in Hawaii. The fiftieth state. Of the United States of America. No one checked my ID on the way in. But just in case....

This is the face of contempt and arrogance. Our man Barry is riding high, feeling pretty pleased with himself. Has there ever been a more pompous, arrogant, narcissistic a$$ in the White House than this guy? Well, let him continue to smirk and riff and laugh at half the country--for what? Proving that he was born here? Really? Let him and ObamaTeam (TM) continue to underestimate people, particularly "carnival barker" Donald Trump. Just remember Barry, he who laughs last, laughs best. This is childish behavior from the President of the United States, something we've come to expect from The Won, but something I will never get used to from a sitting president. I'm always astounded when he pulls this $hit.

So to be clear, the Left continues to throw down the race card for this guy, and any sort of criticism of him will be found, at best, to have "racial overtones." Do they really think this "racist" stuff is going to work again? Evidently they do, because this theme is being pushed again like it was a brand-new thought. Maybe it worked before Barry Baffoon had a record to run on, but it ain't gonna work anymore.

Ed Schultz: "This is what the Republican Party stands for, though--racism. I think Donald Trump is a racist."

Bob Schieffer is just an embarrassment. He criticizes Trump for mentioning Obama's grades and how he got into Harvard Law: "That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black. This is an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing." Hey Schieffer, what do you think affirmative action is all about? Do you really think a mediocre (at best--maybe he wasn't even that good, who knows?) white male student at Columbia could get into Harvard Law?

Idiot Joy Behar, I can barely listen to the woman: "It's very racist, because, in other words, you say he couldn't get into Harvard on his own, he didn't write his book, [Trump] can't fathom that a black man could be that smart. That's what's behind this."

The New Yorker blogs, posted on 27 Apr by David Remnick: Trump, Birtherism, and Race-Bating. "Let’s say what is plainly true (and what the President himself is reluctant to say): these rumors, this industry of fantasy, are designed to arouse a fear of the Other, of an African-American man with a white American mother and a black Kenyan father....Let’s be even plainer: to do what Trump has done (and he is only the latest and loudest and most spectacularly hirsute) is a conscious form of race-baiting, of fear-mongering.

Here's Richard Butrick at The American Thinker, Trump Smells a Rat. Williams Smells a Racist: "The point is that most "birthers", who think that Obama is a slick talking crypto-Marxist with a distain for America, would go after Obama if he were white. Now maybe Obama is a pragmatist and a sincere champion of America as a force for good in the world and the birthers are all wrong. That makes them wrong. It doesn't make them racist. And it doesn't make Trump a racist. Trump smells a rat. Trump has dealt with a lot of duplicitous sneaks in the business world and he smells a rat. Ok. He just smells something fishy." Thank you, American Thinker.

Of course Obama's paper of record (TM) has weighed in on the issue: A Certificate of Embarrassment. Of course, The NYT instructs us, we can only see this issue as racist: "It is inconceivable that this campaign to portray Mr. Obama as the insidious "other" would have been conducted against a white president."

So, that's where the Left is going, again, when their brown-eyed boy (oops, racist) is criticized: racist, racist, racist. We'll see how that works for them.

And if you haven't gotten enough of Boy King Barry yet, you can see him on Oprah on Monday. That's where he went on Friday after he scolded the country in his "press conference" (where he of course took no questions from the press) for not being "serious" about issues and wasting his time with "silliness," asking question about his birf certificate. He said he hoped the release will put the issue to bed so he can focus on more serious and important things--like campaigning for 2012 and appearing on Oprah Winfrey's show. After taping her show, he was headed to New York to do some fund raising, because maybe a billion dollars isn't going to be enough to get him put back into office for another four years--you never know.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Want a Passport? You're gonna have to
give the gov't a whole lot more information

Coming to you from Obama's State Department--What fresh hell is this? There's a proposed new form for acquiring a passport that is, quite simply, beyond belief. If this were coming from any except the current administration in Washington, I would think it was a joke. Some of the questions:

List your mother's residence one year before you were born.

Did your mother receive pre-natal or post-natal care? Give the hospital, the address, the name of the doctor, and the dates of the appointments. WTF?

Please describe the circumstances of your birth, including the names (as well as address and phone number, if available) of persons present or in attendance at your birth.

Other questions you'll be asked if this new form goes through: all addresses since birth; your lifetime employment history, including employers' and supervisors' names, addresses, and telephone numbers (jeeze, I sure wish I'd kept better records when I was babysitting at the age of 11); personal details of all siblings (like what, for instance?); any "religious ceremony" around the time of your birth--oh for the Love of God.

This is the biggest laugher of all--the State Dept. estimates that this will take a person--wait for it--45 minutes to fill out. I guess that's the time it will take to physically write the words on the paper. The research for this thing would probably take me months. And there's this: "failure to provide the information requested may result in...the denial of your U.S. passport application." Well, duh.

According to the website Consumer Traveler, some, but not all, applicants will be required to fill out the new form, but no criteria have been made public for determining who will be "selected" for the new "biographical" form. So evidently, if the passport examiner wants to deny your application, all he or she will have to do is give you this impossible new form to complete (I'm thinking, don't wear your Tea Party lapel pin when you apply for a passport--heh). The State Dept. calls these people "passport adjudicators"--government paper-pushers who will now be able to decide who gets a passport and who doesn't. Brought to you by the Obama Administration.

Exit Question: Would Barack Hussein Obama (or is it Barry Soetoro?) be eligible for a U.S. passport if he had to fill out this form?

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Trump Continues to Hound Obama
about His Unavailable Life Records

Trump is keeping up the heat on Obama about his unavailable records. What about Obama's college transcripts no voter has ever been allowed to see? Why does it matter? Well, for one thing, Obama was sold to the country in the 2008 campaign as Mr. Super Smart, the smartest guy evah to seek the office of POTUS. Really? Then why are his college transcripts sealed? Trump thinks he knows why.

On Monday, Trump gave an interview to the AP:"I heard he was a terrible student, terrible," Trump told the AP. "How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard? I'm thinking about it, I'm certainly looking into it. Let him show his records."

Hilariously, CBS News called Trump out on the issue, saying that Trump "provided no 'evidence' of Obama's terrible marks...." Yes, how true. And that's the rub, ain't it, Barry. Trump is demonstrating how not showing the records can be a double-edged sword for Obama. ObamaTeam can say anything they want to about the guy, with no records to back up what they say--but so can anyone else. And Trump is doing it.

In a related story over at GatewayPundit, Jim Hoft has a post about Khalid Abdulla Tariq al-Mansour, a Muslim lawyer and black nationalist who made news in 2008 when it was revealed that he was one of Obama's patrons and had recommend Mr. Super Smart for admission to Harvard Law School in 1988. Al-Mansour, says Hoft, "is an outspoken hater of the United States, Israel, and white people generally. In the 1960s, Khalid Abdulla Tariq al-Mansour, aka Don Warden, was a San Francisco Bay Area founder of a group called the African American Association. Al-Mansour helped establish the Black Panther Party, but later broke with them when they aligned themselves with white radical groups.

From the interview. I don't know who the old black guy is who is speaking. I almost can't follow someone who speaks so slowly, but I'll do my best. Good Lord, who is this guy? Is he brain-impaired? What's with his sloooooow speech pattern? Seriously, it took this man three minutes to speak three sentences.

Crazy old slow-talking man: Mr. Obama. I think he's the brightesss [my goodnesssss, he has that same sort of hissss to the end of his s's that Obama hasss], most wonderful person who has come across the starting line, and I was introduced to him by a friend who's raising money for him. The friend's name is Dr. Khalid Tariq al-Mansour, from Texas. He is the principal advisor to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama, he wrote to me about him, and his introduction was, "There's a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends left there, because you used to go up there to speak. Would you pleassss write a letter in support of him?" That's before Obama decided to run.

[Uh, yeah, duh, that would have been pre-1988, so I guess he hadn't yet decided to run for president. This guy is another super-smart. Who the hell are these people and how have they gotten into such positions of influence?]

And he interjected the advice that Obama had passss [sic] the requirements, had taken and pass the requirements necessary to get into Harvards and become president of the Law Review. That's before he ever ran for anything. And I wrote a letter in support of him to my friends at Harvard saying to them I thought there was a genius that was going to be available. And I certainly hoped they would treat him kindly.

Sycophantic Interviewer: And this is before the World knew of Barack Obama!

Crazy old slow-talking man: That's right. That's right. That's right.

Good holy grief! This guy is saying more than he knows. Obama had passed the requirements necessary to get into Harvard and become president of the Law Review? All in one fell swoop? Gee, I didn't know it worked that way, but I guess if you have such a super genius like you had in Obama, then there's no question that this applicant would three years later become Law Review President. This mediocre student from Columbia. This community organizer. Haha.

The slow-talker being interviewed, the one who wrote the letter for "genius" Barry Hussein Obama, was useful idiot Percy Sutton [maybe I shouldn't be so hard on an old man, but he was allowing himself to be used], a civil rights attorney who represented Malcolm X. Naturally, ObamaTeam immediately denied Sutton's story, back in 2008, when this interview was given: Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt [where is he now, I wonder?] said, "Obama did not know and does not know Khalid al-Mansour." Well, clever. You don't have to "know" someone to have connections with them. Although by now we understand that everything the Obama people say is a lie. Heck, they'll like when they don't have to just for practice.

Sutton died in 2009. You can believe that ObamaTeam wished the old man had died before he gave that interview, but they obviously believed that Sutton's death would flush his statements about Obama's connection to al-Mansour down the memory hole. Thank you Donald Trump for bringing all of this up again.

Watch and listen to the video of Percy Sutton, if you can.

Update. At PajamasMedia, there's an interesting article about al-Mansour, written 26 Aug 2008 by Richard Fernandez: "The wrong man, sir." The article underlines how little was known about Barry Obama even at that point in 2008--and how apologetic people were for even questioning the man. Meh.

Also, Pamela Geller on her website, Atlas Shrugged, was all over this issue 'way back on 27 Aug 2008.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Obama Gets Cranky with a Texas Reporter

Big Zero is a guy who really doesn't like to be challenged--no narcissist does. Here he is, being interviewed by a Texas reporter, who has the gall to point out that Obama lost Texas by 10 points in 2008. Obama had a cake walk from the media during his first campaign. Does he really think it's going to be that way the second time around? Hey Zero, welcome to politics! What you have here is just a tiny window into your new world. This guy is the most thin-skinned politician I think I've ever seen. Affirmative action got this guy all the way to the top, but it won't keep him there.

That phony smile at the beginning--no one believes it anymore, champ.

He says "two million" and then has to correct himself to say, "two trillion dollars worth of cuts." A million--a trillion--what's the difference?

Oh, I love this guy's question, "Why do you think you're so unpopular in Texas?" Haha. The irritated, clueless look on Zero's face while he tries to answer that question at 0:34 is priceless. Zero is obviously pissed that he's not getting a question about his awesomeness.

Obama: "We lost by a few percentage points in Texas..."

Reporter: [having the audacity to interrupt The Won] "Well, you lost by about ten...[interrupting Zero's "uh, uh uh"]...fifty five to forty four." Oh string this guy up--interrupting, not sitting there letting Zero run out the clock, not kissing his ring--oh, this reporter should definitely plan on getting a tax audit for the rest of his natural life.

I have never in my lifetime seen a sitting POTUS who slams people in the other party the way Zero does. He simply doesn't understand how to "act presidential," he doesn't understand being an executive, he doesn't understand that he's President Obama, not Campaign Obama.

Obama: "Governor Perry [certainly no fan of The Won] balanced his budget with about 6 billion dollars worth of Federal help, which he happily took, and then, uh, started blamin', uh, the members of Congress who had offered that help."

The video continues at 2:06, after the interview is finished. The reporter's voiceover--"After the interview, Mr. Obama pointed out that he doesn't like a reporter challenging his comments."

Obama: "Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, all right?" [Which of course will be a cold day in hell.]

Great job, Brad Watson! Showing journalism isn't completely dead, and no coincidence that the guy is from Texas. How soon do we secede?

You know, watching an interview like this with Obama, which doesn't happen often because he's always so heavily handled and scripted, you have to wonder, what is with this guy? An interesting article that goes in that direction, attempting to answer it from a psychological point of view, is written by Robin Berkeley at American Thinker. Berkeley has written several think pieces along the same lines. This one was written 11 June 2010: "A Shrink Asks: What Is Wrong with Obama?" Writes Berkeley: "Obama's odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge....Obama is flat when passion is needed; he's aggressive when savvy is required. What's most worrisome is that Obama doesn't even realize that his behavior is inappropriate."

Monday, April 18, 2011

Could the Issue of "The Hidden Records" Unravel on Obama?

See the Update below about Obama's Social Security numbers.

With Donald Trump coming out and making it "safe" for politicians to mention the birth certificate issue, is it possible that this whole mess of the missing/hidden/locked down documentation for Big Zero might just unravel?

People are starting to say, Well, you know, the "birf certificate" thing is just shorthand for the larger issue of Obama's failure/unwillingness to disclose any of the documents that prove his background. At first I thought he was just ducking the birth certificate issue, in essence actually creating the issue, loving this issue because the "birther" thing made people who asked these questions look stupid. But what the "birther" thing really is comes down to an issue of eligibility: is Barack Hussein Obama constitutionally eligible for the office? We'll get more about that when Jerome R. Corsi's book comes out on May 17:  Where's the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President. Some people say, Who cares? Well, I do.

The more I think about it, I've come to the conclusion that this clown has a whole lot in his background that he must hide.


He only gets one: 1) Barack Obama Sr. I mean, seriously, there isn't even the slightest physical resemblance between Barack or anyone in his family and his "son" Barry; 2) Frank Marshall Davis; or, my personal favorite, 3) Malcolm X. Someday we'll know, but probably not within my lifetime. People have remarked about the outstanding rememblance between Malcolm X's sister and Barry Soetoro's oldest daughter ("Brother, stop it"). The audience participation of the video clip is hilarious--the mound venus? Gasp.

Seriously, though, I can envision a day when someone is going to make a whole career out of "outing" the truth about Soetoro/Obama.

There are other, even more "interesting" ideas about Obama's father. One I haven't heard much but that is particularly unusual but not impossible is that Barry's "mother," Stanley Ann Dunham, is really his half-sister, and Barry was fathered by Stanley Dunham who had some sort of fling with an AfAm woman. This is the kind of thing that happens when a public figure refuses to make his public documents--public. P.S. The enormous ears come from the Dunham family.

Of course, another possibility is that after he was born in the manger, Barry Hussein was left in a willow basket among the rushes, near a sacred river. Haha. That came from one of the clever commenters at my favorite blog, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog, where yesterday they were discussing O's family genetics.


The truth about his college years would probably make interesting reading. Those years seem to be something of a black hole (haha, no pun intended). Occidental College? He was a student there for two years, starting in 1979. No transcripts from Occidental.

The summer of 1981, before he started at Columbia, he traveled to Indonesia to visit his mother and half-sister. That was when he spent 3 weeks in Pakistan, supposedly traveling with a college friend whose family lived in Karachi. He spent 3 weeks in Pakistan? How long did he spend with his mother? That passport would probably tell us something about him; has anyone ever seen a non-redacted version?

Columbia University? No transcripts, where he supposedly majored in political science "with a specialty in international relations"--really? Whoever made that one up must have fallen off his chair laughing. It is said he graduated with a B.A. in 1983.

One of the questions that keeps coming up is about how he financed his education, and this one I think just might be the lynchpin of them all. The buzz surrounding the financing is that perhaps Barry Soetoro was a Fulbright Scholarship winner--something he would have been eligible for only as a citizen of a foreign country. If he were a Fulbright Scholar, then either 1) he gamed the system and lied about being a foreign citizen; or 2) he has dual citizenship. Either scenario would certainly be something worth hiding if you're running for President of the United States. Oh, and P.S. The Fulbright Scholar Program is overseen by the State Department, so it's not very likely we'll ever see any records from that source.

And don't even get me started about how he got into (and out of) Harvard Law and the Law Review.

How about Medical Records? Haven't seen any of those, but his doctor has told us he's in good health. Yes, that sets my mind right at ease. Here's this anorexic, fey little man, he's lost a lot of weight since he came into office, he smokes, he may bounce a basketball now and then and he certainly drives a golf cart around on a weekend, but so much of the time he just simply doesn't look well. Oh well. I guess his health is the least of our worries, but it does seem like we have a right to know if this man is healthy, or not.

Anyway, whatever Trump finds out in his investigations and whatever he reveals, plus whether he runs or doesn't run, I think we all owe Donald Trump a big "Thank-you" for putting this issue out into the light of day--again. I would say at the very least, "Stay tuned because we haven't heard the last of this stuff."

And P.S., for a great new video from Granny Jan, a commenter-extraordinaire at Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog, see the YouTube sensation, "The Campaign to Stop the Bullying at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

Update. And how could I forget about this one--Obama's many Social Security numbers. What's up with that, anyway. Jack Cashill whose book (above) has a section about this, writes an article, "Another Look at Obama's Social Security Number," 17 Mar 2011. He hired an investigator who discovered that Obama had used a Social Security number that was issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979. Connecticut? What's up with that? Yet any time this sort of thing is brought up, immediately it's ridiculed and laughed off as some sort of "birther" conspiracy, which is actually a brilliant strategy that we all must admit has worked extremely well, up to now.

Susan Daniels was the investigator who found the Connecticut number for Cashill, and she had this to say: "All I can say," says Daniels of the 042-68-4425 number, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his selective service document in 1980." Recently Bill O'Riley of Fox News used half a show to debunk these controversies, saying about this one that perhaps since Barack Obama Sr. attended college in Connnecticut, then . . . what? I didn't follow O'Riley's argument at all. --And I thought B.O. Sr. went to Harvard, which last time I knew was in Massachusetts, but maybe I'm just too stupid to follow that nuance.

Daniels adds that even though she found this number used with his Selective Service application, she can't vouch for its authenticity. Some have argued that the Selective Service information was forced and backdated once Big Zero became a presidential candidate. If so, says Daniels, "They were stupid to use the CT number on the [Selective Service] card, because now there is no way for [Obama] to back out of that number."

Update #2. Carol A. Tabor has written an excellent article, posted at American Thinker: "Trump Needs to Shift to Second Gear on Birth Certificate Challenge." Anyone who's concealed his documents (and hired lawyers to fight efforts in court to reveal his place of birth), as Mr. Obama has, appears not trustworthy; his actions alone demand forensics testing for any document he produces as proof of his "natural born" status. As Ronald Reagan famously put it, "Trust, but verify."....Clearly, Obama's life documents -- which remain sealed from public view -- pose a problem for him, and the behavior of his inner circle proves it.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Whatever his aim, what he's doing is brilliant

New Updates below.

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is going at Barack Obama head-on, and it's brilliant. Here's what Trump said on NBC's Today Show recently. Who else could say this and get away with it. The brilliance of it is that Trump can say anything he wants to say:

During a discussion about Obama's birth certificate, Meredith Vieira said, "In the state of Hawaii, they say they have seen this document, that he was born in the United States. That's good enough for them." [Them?? Who the hell is them? An aside: Doesn't it seem odd that the press doesn't seem to have one ounce of curiosity about this issue? As someone who followed Watergate on an almost daily basis the summer of the Watergate hearings, I do find it very strange that even what passes for a "journalist" today (and the term can be used only very loosely), this issue doesn't have any interest for them. Why not?]

Trump: A birth certificate is not even close. A certificate of live birth is not even signed by anybody. I saw his -- I read it very carefully. It doesn't have a serial number. It doesn't have a signature. He spent $2 million in legal fees trying to get away from this issue, and if he weren't lying, why wouldn't he just solve it? I wish he would because if he doesn't it's one of the greatest scams in the history of politics and in history, period.

Meredith Vieira couldn't handle it--her eyes were spinning in her head. And the most hilarious thing is that NBC has to handle this guy carefully because he's got the highest-rated show on their network. Haha. So she tried another way, asking Trump if there was anything he thinks Obama has done well. Haha.

TRUMP: Get elected. I think he did a great job when he ran for office. If I had my choice of having Obama do great as a president and do a really great job for this country and not running, as opposed to running and doing -- I'd prefer that he did a great job. I love this country. But this country is going to hell. I would run a great, great country. This country will be great again. It is not great right now. We have huge deficits. We have huge unemployment. We have huge problems, and we're not respected. We're not respected in the world. The world laughs at us. They won't be laughing if I'm president.

Rush Limbaugh's reply to all of this is that Trump is providing a blueprint for the way to beat Obama in 2012--just go straight at him: Everybody lives in this media-created fantasy that the guy's unbeatable, that he's the greatest orator in the world. You get him away from the prompter, I'm serious, and he's lost. He's a gaffe machine. He and Biden are in the same class, and it doesn't take long to call the roll.

On the ABC Sunday talking heads show with Christiannnne Amanpoooourrr, who heads the A-list of water-carriers for Big Zero, asked Obama's Whiz Kid David Plouffe, [don't you just want to slap that contemptuous smirk off that guy's face?] about the issue. Plouffe responded that Donald Trump is a "sideshow." Really? Oh please, you nasty little punk, underestimate Donald Trump--please!

Christiannnnne: "He seems to doubt, yet again, President Obama. He's talking yet again about the whole birth certificate issue.....I know that you've answered all the questions on this birth certificate issue, but what do you make of Donald Trump raising this issue? Do you think it's going to be a big issue during the campaign?"

Pluff: Uh, I don't. I saw Donald Trump's kinda rising in some polls, and his behavior and spectacle the last couple of weeks, I hope he keeps on rising, cause I don't think, there's zero chance that Donald Trump would ever be hired by the American people, uh, to do this job. There may be, uh, a small part of the country that believes these things [hey Pluff, it's not a matter of belief--or faith. Just put the stupid thing out there. What's the big deal?], uh, but mainstream Americans think it's a sideshow, and what they want our leaders to do is focus squarely on the issues in front of us--and blah, blah, blah, talking points.

Actually, I'm thinking that Pluff and the gang are wetting their collective pants over what Trump can do to them. At the very least, he's a big distraction for them--haha, another of their favorite talking points--living rent-free in their heads, boring into their brains like a cancerous worm. Go Trump. He doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks about him, nor does he have to. In the Emperor's New Clothes world that Pluffie lived in throughout the campaign in 2007, anyone who dared to question or criticize Barry Hussein Obama was raaaacist. Admittedly, that worked well for them for a long time, but they finally used the word so often that it lost its sting. So then they went to calling "birther, birther, you're a birther nyah-nyah" if anyone actually asked for Barry Soetoro to give up his legal papers like everyone else in the country has to do if they want so much as a driver's license. Well, thanks to Trump, that's not going to work so well for them anymore either. Hey, Pluffie, it ain't 2007 anymore pal!

Update. I heard a very strange interview with Ann Coulter tonight who insisted that the birth certificate is a non-issue, that "everyone" has seen the long form, that the short form is no different legally, blah blah. I don't understand her position on this, except that maybe she thinks that the issue has been used too often to marginalize people on the right as "crazy birthers." Usually I like what she has to say, but I think she's dead wrong on this issue.

Update #2. This is from a Denver radio show, an interview with Bob Unruh, investigative reporter. They shred Bill O'Reilly's "proof" from Tuesday night about Barack Obama's records--"What a running con that was last night." It's interesting.

04132011PETE7A.mp3 (audio/mpeg Object)

Saturday, April 09, 2011

This Is Sweet

Brought to you by the Daily Kos: "Ignore this Mr. President. You already ignore me."

Dear readers, I apologize for what I am now writing. It will not be coherent, because I am responding to the policy and actions of an administration that are not coherent.

It is an expression of ... what? Disappointment to be sure, anger, almost despair.

This screed babyish tantrum goes on and on--it's hilarious, but funnier still are the 783 comments. Oh, boo-fucking-hoo! Comments, below, taken at random. They go on and on like this, 783 of 'em.

I gave up on him a long time ago.

The only time I pay any attention to him these days is when he continues to enable Republican talking points and screw the working class over. Unfortunately, that happens more and more these days.

It's another betrayal.

Obama doesn't seem to understand a basic tenant of democracy: we elected him to fight for our interests. Now he seems to think it's his job to convince us to give up our interests so that we can work together with the side that lost a democratic election.

No, Mr. Obama, if we had wanted a president who could work with congressional republicans, we would have elected McCain.


I'm done with this president.

Until further notice and evidence of his will to fight for the PEOPLE, I am out.

•He says he wants my contributions for his reelection campaign? NO.

•He says he wants me to work for his campaign again? NO.

•He says he wants me to canvass for his campaign again? NO.

•He says he wants me to phonebank for his campaign again? NO.

Not until he shows me that he is FIGHTING for the American PEOPLE and not the corporations, bankers and those with "special access" to power. Not until he has shown that he won't triangulate and capitulate to Tea Partiers and corporate interests over those of the PEOPLE who elected him.

Where the hell is your "fierce urgency of now", Mr. President? Until I see it, you can count me "out". I've had enough - and spare me your flowery celebratory flowery "bullshit" address afterwards. When we needed you, you CAVED (again) and that was one time too many for me.


Until this weekend, I've tried to stay open-minded

...but I've reached my breaking in point. Fuck 'em all and fuck it all. I'm OUT.

If Obama doesn't need me, then fine - we're even.


I read both of his books

I never said I thought he was a progressive

and I was quite critical of his educational policy while he was a candidate

but I think given some of his rhetoric during the campaign and early in his presidency, it was not unreasonable to have expected a number of things to be different.


Are you over him yet? Hahahaha

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Ann Barnhardt: Warrior and Cultural Hero

Update: See the transcripts below, since I'm pretty much convinced that these clips will disappear from You Tube at some point.

There are leftist elitist radical slobs like Samantha Power (see post below). And then there are warrior cultural heros like Ann Barnhardt.

I found these YouTube clips at one of my favorite websites, Seraphic Secret, posted on April 06, 2011. Here she is discussed at PajamasMedia.

I'm going to let Ann speak for herself. These are must-see videos. In the first one you will see Ann tearing into Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC) for his ignorant comments about free speech and the recent Koran burning by the Florida pastor, Terry Jones.

Now you will see Barnhardt reading passages from the Koran, bookmarked with strips of bacon. After reading, she torches the offending pages, burns the entire book, and at the end says, "You want a piece of me?"--and gives her address. Wow. Simply wow.

Finally, if you can't get enough of her (I can't), here's an interview with Ann Barnhardt.

Transcript from clip one.

Hello, my name is Ann Barnhardt, and I’m apparently one of the very, very last people left in Western civilization who possesses any quantity of brains and balls simultaneously. I saw that Senator Lindsey Graham appeared on Face the Nation this morning and said the following when asked by Bob Schieffer if there was anything that could be done about Americans burning the Koran. Quote: “Yeah, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy. Anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it.” Unquote.

Lindsey Graham is a Republican, and if John McCain had been elected president in 2008, Lindsey Graham would be the attorney general of the United States today. Remember this as I go forward. Let’s take Graham’s words sentence by sentence.

First sentence. Quote: “Yeah, I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable.” Unquote. Hold people accountable? For what? For exercising their Constitutionally protected and divine right to freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion? Hey Jackass. Have you not read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? Here, let me read it for you. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or bridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government of redress of grievances.”

So what Lindsey Graham wants to do is elevate the totalitarian political system masquerading as a religion, called Islam, to a status that supersedes and overrides the First Amendment of the Constitution and thus places it in a position of specially protected legal superiority, wherein criticism of Islam or failure to show proper and sufficient deference and honor for Islamic texts is a crime. Hey Lindsey you Jackass. You know what that’s called? It’s called sharia. What the hell is wrong with you? I’m gonna burn a Koran here in a moment. Lindsey, why don’t you come and hold me accountable, player. Go ahead, have me arrested for exercising my First Amendment rights. Drag me before Congress and hold me to account. Do it. Nothing would make me happier. I would relish the opportunity to explain to you how exactly it is that we do things in the United States of America. If you want to pick a fight, sir, you go right ahead, but understand that if you pick a fight with me, the only way it ends is with you sobbing in the men’s room.

Next quote. “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” Unquote. Free speech is a great idea? It is a bedrock principle of Western civilization and the United States. Individuals are free, sovereign agents. Individuals are not property or drones of the State. The government doesn’t tell the people what to think and say. The people tell the government what to think and say, through the mechanisms of representative republic governance under the Constitution. But what I suspect this really has to do with is intellectual snobbery and elitism. Lindsey Graham, you look at Terry Jones, and you see a redneck with a handlebar mustache who speaks with a southern drawl, without the benefit of a fancy Ivy League education. And you determine that a man like him cannot be trusted with his own personal, intellectual sovereignty under the First Amendment, and therefore you, in your superior intellectual state, have to reign him in. Listen Jackass, it doesn’t work that way. The First Amendment applies to all American citizens equally. It does not operate on a sliding scale based upon how expensive an education one receives, what one’s income is, or whether or not one is invited to tony soirees in Georgetown. But if that’s the game you want to play, that’s fine. If you want to go head to head with a person of intellectual parity, I’m your huckleberry. Come after me. Debate me. I stand foursquare with Terry Jones and am proud to do so.

Next sentence. Quote. “During World War II you had limits on what you could say if it would inspire the enemy.” Unquote. Lindsey, you Jackass. The only prohibitions on speech during World War II and all other wars pertained to speech which would give aid and comfort to the enemy, not speech which demoralized, discouraged, or degraded the enemy. Have you ever seen the WWII posters depicting the Japanese as “Japs” and the Nazis as bloodthirsty animals? Have you never seen the Warner Brothers cartoons? Yes, that’s right, “Loony Tunes,” produced during the war, that ruthlessly mocked and degraded the Germans, Italians, and Japanese? The informal prohibition on speech during the war was on speech that was defeatist or conciliatory towards the enemy, which is exactly what you are engaging in, you stupid, stupid Jackass.

Next sentence. Quote. “Anytime we can push back here in America against actions like this that put our troops at risk, we ought to do it.” Unquote. Push back? Since the free speech in question is by a loyal, law-abiding American citizen, against the sworn enemy of the United States and its Constitution, which is Islam, and you Senator Graham are talking about “pushing back,” using the force of the government of the United States, it sure sounds to me like you have decided that the United States government is aligned with Islam against the people of the United States, who do not show sufficient deference and respect for Islam. Senator Graham, you can take your dhimmitude and shove it up your ass. And don’t you dare accuse patriotic Americans, who are exercising their First Amendment rights, of putting our troops at risk. The only thing that is putting our troops at risk is the suicidal, defeatist rules of engagement which prevent our brave soldiers from actually fighting and defeating the enemy. You hang our boys out on the line in battle, and then you refuse to give them ammunition, refuse to allow them to engage the enemy without permission from a flipping attorney, and refuse to allow them to engage “civilians” while fighting a force that is 100% comprised of civilians. How dare you accuse us of putting our troops at risk.

Final quote. “So I look forward to working with Senator Kerry and Reid and others to condemn this, condemn violence all over the world based in the name of religion.” Unquote. I have just one question: What act of violence did Terry Jones or Ann Barnhardt perpetrate? Did we kill anyone? Did we assault anyone? Did we saw anyone’s head off? What act of violence did we perpetrate? How is burning paper with ink on it an act of violence? How is an object made of paper equivalent to the life of a human being? Are you honestly arguing that tearing and burning a book is equivalent to killing and beheading a human person? What is the matter with you? Do you know why we Christians don’t get too terribly upset about people who burn bibles or create horrific sacrilegious images using Christian symbols? Because we understand that a Bible can be reprinted and that an image is just an image. The image of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine makes us sad, and sad not because we believe that it’s physically Jesus being drowned in urine. It makes us sad because of the implied hatefulness, misery, and despair of the artist who would do such a thing and the patrons who would applaud it. Christians don’t want to kill Robert Mapplethorpe while he was still alive. We wanted to pray for him so he would come to know God and be released from his obvious torment so that hopefully we can all be together in Heaven someday.

This is why we are burning the Koran: because it is the manifesto of an evil, totalitarian political system, and it enslaves human beings in a culture of misery, hopelessness, perversion, despair, true violence, and unnatural death. And if you weren’t such a monumental Jackass, Senator Graham, and didn’t spend all of your time kissing the ass of the very political system that would cut your throat in a heartbeat, maybe you would understand that.


Transcript from clip two:

Now, the main event. Here is my Koran. It is printed in English and Arabic, so it’s a completely legit, official Koran. I have bookmarked several passages, and, um, the passages I’ve bookmarked I’ve bookmarked with bacon, because raw bacon makes the best koranic bookmark. I’m just going to go through these in order, from front to back, and read them off, and then, um, once I’ve read them off, I will tear the page out of the Koran, put it in my fire bowl, and ignite it here.

First one, you might want to jot these down. Surah Two, Verse 191: “and fight the infidels wherever you find them, and expel them from the place where they turned you out from.” Evil, evil garbage [as she rips the page from the book], and it goes . . . up in flames. Go back to hell where you came from. And I’ll discard my bacon bookmark here [splat].

Next up, Surah Two, Verse 193: “fight them till idolatry comes to an end and the law of Allah prevails.” Evil. Pull that out. . . garbage. On fire. Burn baby, burn.

Next up, pull my bacon bookmark out. The smell is divine, by the way. Alright, we are in Surah Four, Verse 24: “also forbidden are married women, unless they are captives of war, such is the decree of Allah.” What this is talking about is who a man can or can’t have sex with, so what this is doing is that it is ratifying the rape of women captured in jihad. Let me read it again, this is Surah Four, 24: “also forbidden are married women, unless they are captives of war, such is the decree of Allah.” Well Allah is an evil son of a bitch, so he can go to hell. Next up is also within Four: 24: “then give those of these women you have enjoyed the agreed dower. It will not be sinful if you agree to something else by mutual consent after having settled the dowry. Allah is certainly all-knowing and all-wise.” What this verse is doing is it’s ratifying prostitution. If a man pays a woman a dower or a dowry or certain quantity of money, he can have sex with her, without obligation. And certainly Allah is all-knowing and all-wise because Allah is an evil son of a bitch. [and the bacon goes, “splat”]

Alright, next, onto Surah Four, 34. This is talking to a man, who, one of his many wives, will not have sex with him willingly. Surah Four, 34: “As to women you feel are averse, talk to them persuasively, then leave them alone in bed without molesting them. Then beat them, and go to bed with them when they are willing.” So this ratifies beating your wife if she won’t have sex with you. Evil, evil, evil. [lights the page on fire] And we’ll burn this, because that has no place in a civilized society.

Next up, let’s go to, this is Surah Five, 33: “the punishment for those who wage war against Allah and his prophet [who is Mohammed], and perpetrate disorders in the land, is to kill or crucify them, and have a hand on one side and foot on the other cut off.” Evil. [rip] Burn, burn, burn.

OK, pull my bookmark out [splat]. Next up, we’re in Surah Eight, 12: “and Allah said to the angels, ‘I am with you, go and strengthen the faithful. I shall fill the hearts of infidels with terror, so smite them on their necks, and every joint, and incapacitate them.” This is the call to the beheading the infidels, this is where that all comes from. [rip] And it’s evil, so we will burn that. Back to hell where you came from. [another bacon bookmark goes “splat]

And let’s see now, what do we have next, we have, ah, Surah Nine—Surah Nine, Verse 5, this is the big one: “but when these months, prohibited for fighting are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every likely place." [rip—and her smoke alarm goes off]

Next up, still in wonderful Surah Nine [splat], Verse 29: “fight those People of the Book who do not believe.” By the way, Judeo-Christians, that’s us, People of the Book. “Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah and the last day. Do not prohibit what Allah and his apostle have forbidden, nor accept divine law, until all of them pay the [Jizyah] tax in submission.” Evil [rip]. I’m paying no frickin’ tax. Burn, burn, burn.

Next up, [splat] still in good old Surah Nine, Verse 80: “whether you plead forgiveness for them or not, Allah will not forgive them, even though you plead seventy times. For they disbelieved in Allah and his apostle, and Allah does not show transgressors the way.” Evil. [rip, burn]

Next up, we’re still un Surah Nine [splat], Verse 123: “Oh believers, murder the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.” Really. [rip] Yeah, go to hell. There you go.

Now we are in Surah Thirteen, Verse 42 [splat]: “surely those who had gone before them did deceive, for Allah is all-deceiving, for he has knowledge of what each does.” This is calling God a deceiver and a liar, which implies that, really, Allah’s true identity is Satan. [rip] And I think we can all agree to that. Go back to hell, Allah, from whence you came. [burn]

Next up. Surah Twenty-three, [splat] Verse 1: “The true believers will be successful who are humble in their service, who shun all frivolities, who strive for betterment, who guard their sex, except from their wives and women-slaves of old.” This ratifies, um, concubines. Evil. [rip] And we’ll burn that.

Next up, Surah Forty-seven [splat], Verse 4: “So when you clash with the unbelievers, smite their necks until you overpower them, then hold them in bondage.” [rip] Yeah, I’d like to see you try. [burn] There we go.

Next up, Surah Fifty-two [splat], Verse 24. This goes to man-boy sex, which is highly prized in Islam. “And young boys, like pearls within their shells, will go round.” Uh, there’s all kinds of verses about this [rip]. It’s twisted. [burn] And I’ll be writing an essay on homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia and heterosexual pedophilia within Islam very, very shortly. Because it’s a cultural norm.

[splat] Next up is Surah Fifty-six, Verse 17. “Boys of never-ending bloom will pass round to them cups and decanters.” Never-ending bloom means, never-ending pubescence, and that’s what the Muslim man is taught to find sexually attractive [rip], is pre-pubescent and pubescent boys. [burn] It’s truly, truly disgusting. Most boys in Islamic culture do not escape their childhood without being anally and orally raped—by men. And they, in turn, perpetuate the cycle of sexual abuse. And most men in Islamic cultures are homosexual/homosexual pedophiles.

Now to Surah Sixty-five [splat], Verse 4: Divorce. “As for your women who have lost hope of menstruation and in case you have doubt, the prescribed period of waiting for them is three months, as also for those who have not menstruated yet.” What this is doing is ratifying sex with pre-pubescent girls. Let me read it again. “As for your women who have lost hope of menstruation [that would be older women], and in case you have a doubt, the prescribed period of waiting for them is three months, as also for those who have not menstruated yet.” So this is ratifying sex with girls who are under 12 [rip], 13 years old. Which is evil, [burn] there is no other word for that, it’s evil. So we’ll burn that.

And then finally, last citation here, is Surah Seventy-six [splat goes the bacon for one last time], Verse 19: “And boys of everlasting youth will go about attending them. Looking at them, you would think that they were pearls dispersed.” [rip] Again, young boys, as sex objects. Disgusting. [burn] Filthy, evil, satanic, disgusting. The whole thing, front to back. I just picked out a few, every single page has something like that. There’s either ratification of rape, ratification of sex with boys, or violence, violence, violence—kill, maim, behead, show no mercy, blah, blah, blah. This [holds up the Koran] is evil. Evil, evil garbage. [rips off the cover] And it will be a cold day in hell before I bow down to this crap. [burns the cover]

I would encourage all of you out there watching who share my feelings to do something similar. Because we have to make a stand right here and right now. We can’t wait around for 20 years, we can’t wait around a generation for our kids to fight this war for us. This war is on us right here and right now. Either we make our stand right here, or it’s over. Burn a Koran. Put it on You Tube. Show the world that we are not gonna back down. Backing down is not what Christianity is about. There’s a reason why the church on earth is called the Church Militant. OK? You can come after me, if you want, boys. You come after me. That’s fine. I have no problem laying down my life, for my fellow Americans, for my fellow human beings, and for the Church. I have no problem with that. Come and get it. But I’m not going to lay down. That is not what Christ commands. There are times when we have to fight. We fight evil, we fight the evil in the world, and this crap is evil.

My name is Ann Barnhardt, I live at 9175 Cornbreast Circle, 80124, in Lone Tree, Colorado. Anybody who wants a piece of me is more than welcome to come and get it. That goes for Lindsey Graham, anyone in the government who thinks that this is a crime, or any Muslims who would like to come and get a piece of me. I’ve had enough of this crap. I’m not gonna bow, I’m not gonna submit to Islam, ever. Ever.
Samantha Power--Obama's New Sec of State?

You know, maybe O's administration just floats these trial balloons to make people crazy, I don't know. But the newest thing out there is that this woman, Samantha Power, is going to be nominated as Big Zero's Secretary of State. Oh why not? The U.S. is the laughing stock of the world at this point anyway, so what could it possibly matter?

Who is Samantha Power? Glad you asked. You remember her, right? She was the Obama campaign advisor who called Hillary Clinton a "monster." She was allowed to "resign" after those remarks which were published in a Scottish newspaper, despite her efforts to keep the remarks from appearing in print. Demonstrating her diplomatic skills, Power said, "She's a monster, too--that is off the record--she is stooping to anything." Quite the diplomat, our Samantha. She sounds like the perfect face for the Obama adminstration to negotiate the U.S. position around the world.

Now it seems as if she's also the one to whom Obama outsourced the decision to go to Libya. Huh? Evidently our involvement in Libya is a trendy new concept among foreign policy wonk-elites like Power called Responsibility to Protect (or preciously, R2P). According to Ed Lasky in his article about Power at American Thinker, "The Power of Samantha Power," her opinion "eclipsed the views" of her boss, Nat'l Security Advisor Tom Donlin and also of O-Bomb-A's Defense Sec. As Lasky says, we shouldn't be surprised at Powe's influence with The Won, since he consistently has made a mockery of the concept of the org chart throughout his executive branch, with the appointment of his Czars and recess appointments who do an end-around the advice and consent of the Senate. But I don't know how you can do a "do-around" with the position of Sec State. We'll see, they must have something in mind, because surely the Senate would't confirm this woman, would they?

One reason for believing this nomination is really going to happen is that The NYT has published a very approving profile of Ms. Power: "Still Crusading, but Now on the Inside." She spoke at Columbia University last Monday night, just hours before O-Bomb-A addressed the nation about his incoherent plans for Libya: “I’m not going to talk much about Libya,” she began, though when it came time for questions she could not help herself. “Our best judgment,” she said, defending the decision to establish a no-fly zone to prevent atrocities, was that failure to do so would have been “extremely chilling, deadly and indeed a stain on our collective conscience.” The Times goes on...That the president used almost precisely the same language was hardly a surprise. Great. So Zero is not only outsourcing his military leadership to NATO and the UN, he's also outsourcing his military decisions to a 40-something radical with--what experience to make that sort of decision, exactly???

It's also at Obama's Paper of Record (TM) that we find out who this woman is and what she "believes" (I put "believes" into scare quotes because I think it's pretty clear that to be part of Barry's administration, you can't really "believe" anything--ask Eric Holder about that one). She's called a "human rights crusader," and is a member of the National Security Council which advises The Won on foreign policy. (Other members of Big Zero's security council are here.) The NYT calls Obama's decision to pursue military intervention in Libya "something of a personal triumph for her." Isn't it a bit early to call Libya anyone's "triumph"? Just askin'. The Times tells us, alternately, that Ms. Power was a "vocal opponent" of the Iraq war. Well, then, her anti-war creds are solid.

Stanley Kurtz has an article about Power posted April 5 at the National Review Online: "Samantha Power's Power" where he says that when we view the full sweep of her life's work, Samantha Power emerges as "a patriot's nightmare--a woman determined to subordinate America's national sovereignty to an international order largely controlled by leftist bureaucrats." While her stated public goal ("superficial" goal, Kurtz says) is to put a stop to genocide, in reality, "her goal is to use our shared horror at the worst that human beings can do in order to institute an ever-broadening regime of redistributive transnational governance."

The article is a must-read. Kurtz spells out in detail the long-time influence this woman has had on Obama's thinking about foreign policy. For example, it's fascinating to note that a 2007 piece by Power in The New York Times Book Review attacked the phrase "War on Terror," which of course the Obama administration has since dropped. Kurtz also details how Power's framing of the issue of "interest-based" rationalizations for intervention (I'm sure she would never use the word "war") has been adopted wholesale by Obama.

Kurtz further states that Power's eagerness for a humanitarian showcase has led us to intervene in what is really a tribal war. Her outlook is "post-American"--read further in the article for the details on that. "Power sees herself as a clever sort of radical who works from within established institutions, without ever really sacrificing her rebellious ideals." He quotes Tom Hayden as saying that Power's "originality" was "to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values."

Kurtz says that Power has a lot to teach us about Barack Obama: "She herself draws analogies between the need to redistribute wealth via health-care coverage and the need to divide military and diplomatic power (and implicitly, wealth) more evenly through the international system."

Kurtz says that one of Power's longstanding goals (which she now disavows) is to impose a "two-state solution" on Israel. She has also been a long-time defender of the International Criminal Court, which if she has her way, it sounds as if she would happily help to enlist leftist Europeans to place American soldiers and politicians (Bush/Cheney) on trial for supposed war crimes.

And oh, did I mention, Samantha is married to--Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama's "regulatory czar"--dubbed by Esquire magazine as "The Fun Couple of the 21st Century." Oh for the love of God. Here's the darling little fun power couple themselves. Don't they look--fun?

Kinda "fun" in the same way that Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers are fun. You remember our friend Cass. He's the one who thinks that bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them. What should be of no particular surprise to anyone is that all his own records, like transcripts at Columbia, his senior thesis on Soviet Nuclear disarmament, and records from his time in the Illinois state senate have mysteriously "disappeared" (sort of exactly like those of his boss). God knows what this man is really doing behind the curtain in his position as Obama's thought-control Czar. Fun power couple, indeed.

Saturday, April 02, 2011

A simple question: Why don't we care about
the checks and balances for going to war?

Why aren't more people speaking out--screaming--about what Obama is doing in the Middle East? Where are the rabid anti-war protesters that were so vocal during the Bush years? Oh, I guess those were really anti-Bush protesters. Hypocrites.

Obama, Boy King. Is that's where all of this is going? Why isn't he being pushed to get permission from Congress for what he's doing in Libya? His actions are protected by the War Powers Resolution? Really? No, they really aren't. Look it up.

Here is Rand Paul (R-KY) speaking on the floor of the Senate. "The decision to go to war is so important that we shouldn't leave it up to one person. Our founding fathers agreed with this....There is no threat to our national security, and yet we're involved in a third war....While I'm new here in the Senate, I'm appalled that the Senate has abdicated their responsibility. The Senate has chosen not to act and to allow this power to gravitate to the president....without Congressional review, without Congressional votes, without the representatives of the people having any say....We should force a debate in this body."

Rand Paul references an article from the Washington Times by Gen. Mark Kimmitt: "Jumping the Gun in Libya."[n]o-fly and humanitarian protection missions are insufficient to topple an entrenched dictator, and even the military leaders acknowledge they could see a post-intervention scenario that leaves Col. Gadhafi in power." Does anyone remember how long we had in place a no-fly zone over Iraq? For ten freaking years. The no-fly zone policy didn't do anything to get Saddam Hussein out of power. So why do we think it's going to work in Libya?

Exit Question: When was the last time you heard ANYONE report on U.S. casualties in Afghanistan? The goddamn lamestream media protects The Won all day long. Why?

Update. Here's an interesting ariticle from the UK Guardian: "By merely bolstering the weaker side, we are prolonging Libya's civil war" : "Welcome to 21st-century war, liberal style. You do not fix an objective and use main force to get it. You nuance words, bomb a little, half assassinate, scare, twist, spin and make it up as you go along."