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..
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
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.
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.
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."
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 clichés. 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.
"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 clichés. 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!
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!
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:
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.
1.5 million (give or take a million or so)
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?
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
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.
Handed to Her by Condi Rice
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."
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.
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
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
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."
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
The article is priceless.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
