Monday, January 31, 2011

Katie Couric can see that "Internet thingy"
from her house


Oh this is hilarious. 'Way back in 1994, here is Katie and Bryant Gumble discussing just how do you "translate that little mark--that little 'a,' with the ring around it?" asked Gumble. Couric thought it was "about." Gumble said he'd never heard it "said, and then it sounded stupid when I said it." Well, Gumble, lots of things sounded stupid when you said them, so probably no one noticed. And Katie, what magazines to you read, anyway? Oh, and doll, love the hair--that "Roman helmet with the push broom on top," as one of the HotAir commenters wrote.



h/t HotAir

Well, too bad, "someone" removed the video. But it was hilarious while it lasted.

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Egypt, Obama, and the Muslim Brotherhood

So where does the Obama administration stand with what's going on in Egypt? Who are they supporting? Well, here's what our Sec. of State had to say yesterday.



(Just an aside--is Hillary trying to channel Margaret Thatcher these days with her "new look"? I've been trying to figure out what she's doing with herself these days, and that's the closest I can come to an answer. She looks like hell, or at best she looks completely different than she did when she was campaigning. But I digress. . . )

John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador, says that the U.S. responses by Obama and H.Clinton have been "mush. . . . this is a case where we are far better advised to remain silent, try to understand better what's going on, what the stakes are, rather than making statements that other people are parsing to say, "oh, they are supporting the demonstrators," "oh, they are supporting the government." I think there is confusion inside the administration."
Bolton asks the question, "How would you like the Muslim Brotherhood to be in charge of the Suez Canal?"

The NYT, O's paper of record, said in an article on Thursday that the Muslim Brotherhood's role in Egypt's protests "may grow." “Tomorrow [Friday] is going to be the day of the intifada,” said a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood here in Egypt’s second largest city, who declined to give his name because he said he would be arrested if he did. The spokesman said that the group was encouraging members of its youth organization — roughly those 15 to 30 years old — to take part in protests.

Then we have Bruce Reidel, a former CIA officer and adviser to the O administration, with this article in the Daily Beast: "Don't Fear Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood."

An alternate point of view is presented by Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard: "The Muslim Brotherhood is No Friend." Joscelyn states that if you want to know more about the Muslim Brotherhood, Barry Rubin's book is an "excellent compendium": The Muslim Brotherhood.

Read the posts on Atlas Shrugged about the whitewashing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The WSJ has the latest on the chaos in Egypt: "Chaos, Looting Spread as Fighter Jets Sweep Over Cairo."

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Dictator

From the WSJ: "Rebellion in the Land of the Pharaohs," by Fouad Ajami. A deceased friend of mine, an army general of Mr. Mubarak's class and generation, spoke of the man with familiarity: He was a civil servant with the rank of president, he said of his fellow officer. Mr. Mubarak put the word out that he would serve two six-year terms and be gone. But the appetite grew with the eating. The humble officer would undergo a transformation. A presidency-for-life announced itself. And in an astounding change, where Nasser and Sadat feared the will and the changing moods of their countrymen, Mr. Mubarak grew imperious and dismissive. An excellent read.

Condoleezza Rice (oh, what a class act she was): In a 2005 flashback, calls for freedom and democracy in Egypt.



This is what moral clarity looks like. h/t to Verum Serum. Transcript is here.

Friday, January 28, 2011

In Defense of Michelle Bachmann

Glenn Beck blasts Chris Matthews' comments about Michelle Bachmann, that she's a "balloon-head . . . .this woman you've made your spokesperson, who knows no American history."

So Beck tears Matthews apart: "You progressives are liars; you're nothing but frauds . . . . all the stupid little food things you do. . . . when you can explain why the Founders put the 3/5ths clause into the Constitution. . . . you sanctimonious, self-important balloonhead--America has had enough. . . .Chris, was Frederick Douglas just too stupid to understand the Constitution?. . . . You may say whatever you want to say, Chris, but there's nobody listening."

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Further Reaction to the SOTU

Karl Rove has an article this morning in the WSJ--"Obama vs. Ryan: The Choice Is Clear."

"President Barack Obama's State of the Union address and Rep. Paul Ryan's Republican response offer competing visions of the country."

For the ultra-left point of view, we have Paul Krugman's op-ed piece at The NYT about Paul Ryan's response, that it was "as bad as you might expect," using "cooked statistics about federal spending" and other "curious" assertions. Really Paul? Thanks for playing.

Here's how Paul Ryan's Republican response was played over at Huffington Post: "Speech Addresses Spending, Health Care and More." The post includes the text of Ryan's prepared remarks released prior to the president's speech.

Then there's the smirking, big-mouthed little weasel, Rep. Anthony Weiner's completely predictable response: "I just needed a drink" after GOP response."  I'm not sure why I'm posting this here, except that he's such a consistently solid example of what I don't like about the left.

Then I found this at American Thinker by Lloyd Marcus: "Bachman Hits Home Run for Tea Party." This guy is pretty fired up, saying that "Americans are awakening from their 'Obama Night of the Living Brain Dead' zombie state of mind." Oh, would it be racist to mention that Marcus is a black conservative? Or isn't the right supposed to mention such things? I know it was fine for the left to use that all day long to get Obie elected, but maybe it's not OK for the right to mention this. I'm still trying to figure that out.

Listen to Newt Gingrich on the Laura Ingraham Show: "Obama's SOTU 'Fundamentally Dishonest.'" I think it was a very clever speech that was fundamentally dishonest.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

SOTU--shouldn't that be STFU?


I grabbed this shot of Obie at the exact moment after he had said the words, "and fellow Americans." Heh.

Excellent article by Jonah Goldberg at NRO: Over Confidence & Over Kindness. He calls Obie's speech "lackluster and cliched." I had the same thought, that the speech was flat and was going over like a fart. Goldberg says that because he had a good month or so, now he thinks he can go back to his old "comfortable talking points." JG also thinks the mixed seating worked against him. DH and I, watching this thing, said the same thing: there's a sort of "tipping point" where if everyone around you is doing something, you do that thing too. The Dems weren't all sitting together with their Jack-in-the-Box leader up in front, Nasty Nancy, jumping out of her seat at every turn. So mainly, they all sat. How refreshing it was to see Boehner up there looking--bored? His face is hard to read, but he certainly seemed less than enthused.

Did anyone else notice that "gray-haired Obama" showed up last night? Clinton used to do the same thing. Here he is, below, shown morning and evening of the same day.He evidently needed the young, cool look when he met Hu Jintao; last night he may have been going for gravitas gray. Style over substance, every time.


And P.S. Note to Obama: Matching purple-blue tie and lip color for the SOTU, not so good. Don't they have a good makeup artist for this man? He needed some of that spray tan last night that he was using for the Hu dinner. Pale, thin, and exhausted: this man is not up to the job.

Update. From HotAir: "Where was the laser focus on jobs?" One of the commenters at HA: "Why do we care what this man says?" I care because I would want to know if Obie hit one out of the park with his speech. He did not. And I know that, because I watched the thing for myself, even though watching and listening to this guy is painful.


Update #3. Ed Morrissey and the "Obamateurism of the Day": Obama somehow seems to think that security pat-downs are a joke: (exerpt from his speech) Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Morrissey continues: If Obama thinks that high-speed rail — or any other kind of rail — won’t need higher security, he hasn’t paid much attention.  While al-Qaeda has limited its major attacks in the US to airlines, they’ve proven themselves adept at massive and coordinated attacks on train systems in other nations.  Madrid saw almost 200 people killed in the 2004 attacks, and another 56 in the London attacks in July 2005.  There have been a few warnings about plots against subways here in the US, too. . . . it sounds as if Obama himself is questioning the need for patdowns.  If he thinks they’re unnecessary, why hasn’t he directed DHS to stop conducting them?  The people who have to endure them don’t consider it a joke, Mr. President.
The Response to Obama's SOTU
by Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN)



Those who think the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party is going away have another think coming.

Dump Dupnik



















Or, as it's otherwise known: Dumpnik--see the article by Daniel Foster reporting on how Pima County Republicans hope to ride Sheriff Dupnik out of town. You can also go to dumpsheriffdupnik.com for information about donating to this excellent cause.

h/t for the image to The Freedom Fighter's Journal
CBS News: Obama's State of the Union Focus:
"Winning the Future"


"Winning the Future" WTF? Hahaha. Our brilliant leader strikes again.

If the acronym isn't bad enough, Jim Geraghty at National Review Online points out that it might have been a good idea if Dear Leader had checked first to see if his new, new slogan might have been used before. Hilarious.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

House Repeals ObamaCare, 245-189

Just three Democrats voted with the GOP. See ALLAHPUNDIT's post at HotAir.




Civility. What a stupid concept, which is obviously meant for one thing only: to SHUT UP the Right. Today on the House floor one Dem compared the Republicans to Nazis. Classy. Keep talking, Lefties. They can no more refrain from uncivil discourse than they are capable of using critical thinking in their arguments..
REPEAL ObamaCare

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI): "If you take away the smoke and mirrors--the double counting, the non-counting, the discounting. . . . this thing has a $701 billion deficit."



Yesterday, Tuesday, Jan 18, another six states joined the legal battle to overturn the federal ObamaCare mandate, bringing the total to 26 states. Michelle Malkin has the details.

Here's an article from the Heritage Foundation: "How to Repeal Obamacare in the Senate." Harry Reid insists he won't bring the repeal bill to the floor for a vote because the bill "won't pass." Really? OK, the what are you afraid of, Harry? If ObamaCare is so great and everyone loves it so much, then bring the repeal bill to the Senate floor for a vote. As Ed Morrissey says at HotAir, tongue in cheek, "The Senate would spend hours extolling the virtues of ObamaCare and then hold a vote where the House repeal would get widely opposed.  Such a spectacle would cement the spin that the Republican House leadership is radical, out of control, and unrepresentative of the American political consensus."

Or maybe not.Is it possible old Harry Reid won't bring the bill to the floor because it has a chance of passing? Then of course Obama (you remember him--Senator "I Vote Present") would have to veto the repeal bill. And then he and the rest of the senators who are up for reelection can run on THAT vote come 2012. Good luck, Champ.

You gotta love House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, daring Harry Reid to hold a repeal vote.

Friday, January 14, 2011

The Speech in Arizona

I watched the speech. In fact I watched the whole pep rally memorial service. That was a big deal for me, since I find it really hard to listen to this man speak, so I often won't look at anything but a transcript. But I watched this one because pundits were saying that this speech "had" to be different or "would" be different. Some were even saying that this speech would be a "transformative moment" in Obama's presidency.

Then when it was over I watched the pundits at Fox News slobber on themselves, outdoing each other to say what a great speech Obama had given. All I can say is, the reaction to this thing falls into two categories: 1) the usual partisan tripe from Obama sycophants; or 2) the "soft bigotry of low expectations." The second one seems to have been at play at Fox. We are obviously so used to Obama completely missing the mark when it comes to any sort of real leadership, that when he comes even sort of close, people fall all over themselves praising him. It's what Obama's been used to all of his life: effusive praise for an average performance--or as someone else said, a speech filled with "flat, harmless, boilerplate stuff."

So I've been reading around on the Internet, searching for reasonable commentary on this event. I'm going to leave the choice of venue and crowd reaction for others to comment on, except to say that if you put a large group of 20-somethings into a basketball arena, and hand out 10,000 t-shirts, complete with the slogan for the event, then maybe what you're going to get will resemble a pep rally. If you want a memorial service, then you choose--oh, a cathedral or something. I'm sick to death of hearing how Obama and his people were "surprised" about the crowd reaction. That's what we call a confabulation. They knew exactly what they were going to get--cheering, whooping crowds, "giving it up" for candidate Obama. And it was what they wanted, since otherwise Obama could have shut down the whooping in one second. But that thought evidently never crossed the mind of our narcissist-in-chief. The atmosphere of the event was simply bizarre. Michelle Malkin covers the "boneheaded venue" on her website. Another writer at American Thinker is also distressed about the "hijacking of mourning for political purposes."

As for what Obama said. Kirsten Powers isn't exactly one of my favorite commentators, but this time she hit the mark. She has a good article at The Daily Beast: "Obama Speech Missed an Opportunity." Powers' point is that Obama failed to deliver on one of the important reasons for giving the speech in the first place: shutting down the nonsense about how Sarah Palin or right wing talkers caused the shooting. "Obama chided Americans to 'be better,' as if we somehow caused this shooting to happen." I also liked the way Powers pointed out the typically meaningless Obama-speak that was part of this speech, like all of his others: "Among the many odd assertions he made: suggesting that 'what a tragedy like this requires' is that 'we align our values with our actions.' We were told to 'expand our moral imaginations.'" Powers' succinct reaction pretty much mirrors my own: "Huh?"

Update. Does anybody else think the coverage of this whole event, heartbreaking as it is, has become, well, excessive? I'm thinking back to the days surrounding JFK's assassination and comparing what I remember of the coverage of his death and funeral, and I'm starting to think that I've really heard enough about what went on in Arizona. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. I wish the Congresswoman and all the other victims the best recovery possible. One of the big takeaways for me from this tragedy is that the country needs not only to learn how to have a better conversation about mental illness, but medically we also need to find ways to treat mentally ill people more appropriately. And of course, as we've come to expect, the Left obviously tried to capitalize on this tragedy as a means of shutting down free speech, which isn't going to work. And beyond that--I'm done with it.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Sheriff Vitriol: It's Palin's Fault

Congratulations, Sheriff Dupnik. You're an overnight media sensation. This is just criminal idiocy. While "overseeing" the investigation of the recent shooting in Tucson, Arizona, Pima County, Arizona Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has been all over the news since Saturday, leading the charge for the  "antiinflammatory rhetoric" and the "vitriol" in political rhetoric to cease, while simultaneously blaming the Right and Sarah Palin and "certain mouths" (read, Rush Limbaugh) for being responsible for the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle.

"When you look unbalanced people-how they are-how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government—the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous and unfortunately Arizona, I think, has become sort of the capitol. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry." [Wow, "mecca"?--that's a pretty unfortunate metaphor there, Sheriff. But I digress.]

Last night on one of the Fox News shows, Sheriff Vitriol took his own unbalanced rhetoric one step further, blaming the violence on Senator Harry Reid's opponent in the recent election, Sharon Angle, as well Sarah Palin.

"When you have people like Sharon Angle, in Las Vegas, running against Harry Reid, making outrageous statements such as 'We may need to resort to taking the second amendment into certain cases.' And for people like Sarah Palin to say 'We have people like Gabby Giffords in our cross-hairs.' I think those statements are totally irresponsible and they're not without consequences. And we are seeing them here."

The morons in the lamestream press have jumped all over this, calling Dupnik's comments "a bold step" (examiner.com). The Washington Post says that Dupnik's remarks "resonate" with the Left, "who who even before the name of the suspect was released suggested that the shooter may have had been incited by the tea party" [that's Tea Party]. According to the NYT, Dupnik is a man who speaks his mind, and he has "never been one to fan political fires." Really?

Fortunately, there are some voices of sanity still around, including Glenn Reynolds at the WSJ: "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel." Reynolds points out that when someone on the left, like--oh, Obama for instance--makes comments like the one he made in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to a fight, then we bring a gun"--well, that's evidently merely evidence of "high spirits." However, if Sarah Palin  uses words like "lock and load," then somehow in the minds of people like NYT columnist Paul Krugman, those words from the Right create a "climate of hate." (The full Krugman "thought of the day," that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot because she was “a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona” and “violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate."--for a link to Krugman's writing, see the Update.)

As Reynolds writes in his article, "There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clich├ęs. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source."

Reynolds goes on to make the point that American journalists know how to be "sensitive" when they want to be: As the Washington Examiner's Byron York pointed out on Sunday, after Major Nidal Hasan shot up Fort Hood while shouting "Allahu Akhbar!" the press was full of cautions about not drawing premature conclusions about a connection to Islamist terrorism. "Where," asked Mr. York, "was that caution after the shootings in Arizona?" [The York article is another voice of sanity, an excellent read: "Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood, now race to blame Palin after Arizona shootings"]

Reynolds concludes by admonishing the "climate of haters" for their own irresponsibility and dishonesty: To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that? Where, indeed.

Update. From The Daily Telegraph, "Allahu Palin," by Tim Blair, further making the point of the utter hypocrisy and clear intellectual dishonesty in the coverage of the Arizona shooter, a young man who is classicly paranoid schizophrenic, compared to the shooting at Fort Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army major who screamed Allahu Akbar (God is great) as he murdered 13 people.

For his editorial, Paul Krugman ought to be frogmarched out of journalism, although what do we expect, really, from him and the NYT: "We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.” Who needs proof, who needs facts--the left has Paul Krugman.

And Krugman takes the issue one step farther. You could see this coming from 1,000 miles away: Just yesterday, Ezra Klein remarked that opposition to health reform was getting scary. Actually, it’s been scary for quite a while, in a way that already reminded many of us of the climate that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing.

This is classic Leftist strategy: If you can't win an argument (ObamaCare) on its merits, then by all means, do whatever it takes to demonize the other side and/or scare the crap out of people. Or do whatever it takes, period.

Update #2. Michelle Malkin has the lead story: "The progressive 'climate of hate": An illustrated primer, 2000-2010."

The Tuscon massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.

Update #3. From HotAir: "The shame and hypocrisy of the New York Times": the Gray Lady--a shrieking hysteric and a sickening example of media sources that act more like attack dogs than journalists.

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Pelosi Goes Into the History Books

Ding, Dong, the Witch Is Dead!

h/t to HotAir for the image and for their article, "The New Congress." The office name plates changed TODAY. That wasn't so hard, was it? 558 comments over at HotAir--and counting. What a great day!