Wisconsin Union Bullies

Updates below.

This whole thing in Wisconsin seems like it's just going to continue to get nastier. Surely the union people who are demonstrating don't think that the other millions of taxpayers who pay their pensions and health care are going to just sit this one out?

Michelle Malkin brings people up to speed on the issue on her blog: The lowdown: State government workers in the Badger State pay piddling amounts for generous taxpayer-subsidized health benefits. Faced with a $3.6 billion budget hole and a state constitutional ban on running a deficit, new GOP Gov. Scott Walker wants public unions to pony up a little more. He has proposed raising the public employee share of health insurance premiums from less than 5 percent to 12.4 percent. He is also pushing for state workers to cover half of their pension contributions. To spare taxpayers the soaring costs of Byzantine union-negotiated work rules, he would rein in Big Labor’s collective bargaining power to cover only wages unless approved at the ballot box.

Tea Party groups are organizing a counter-rally for today, Saturday, in Madison from noon to 3:00 p.m. saying that it's time the other side of the story is heard at the Capitol. After a week-long protest from the left, which included organization by the O-bot group, Organizing for America, plus an address yesterday by AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, the other side is calling for people to show up today for a counter-protest. "Stand With Scott Walker" is their rallying cry. You can believe that these people will be armed with their best weapons: video cameras. One thing the Tea Party has become during its short life is sophisticated in the tactics of the other side. And the best weapons against those tactics are two-fold: 1) show up; and 2) film what happens and plaster those videos all over the internet.

According to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit, he will attend the rally along with Andrew Breitbart. Other speakers will be announced.

Unsurprisingly, fearless leader, the Big Zero, has weighed in on the union side. He called what the governor is doing in Wisconsin "an assault on the unions." Andy Stern, SEIU president emeritus and one of the most frequent White House visitors in the first two years of O's term, called O's statement "a clear, clean, quick statement" that will "help enormously." Yes, I'm thinking it will "help enormously" towards making O a one-term president. His "leadership" on this issue is as pathetic as everything else he does.

Speaker of the House, John Boehner, ripped Obama yesterday for his demagoguery on the issue: Rather than trying to ‘win the future,’ the President’s political allies are trying, desperately, to cling to a failed past by fighting reforms our nation needs to liberate our economy from the shackles of debt and create a better future for our children and grandchildren. The President should make it clear to his friends that the people of Wisconsin, and states across America, can handle their own affairs without Washington special-interest money and meddling.

Gov. Scott Walker has gone on record as saying that Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate and State Assembly are "stronger than ever" and "won't be bullied" by the union protestors. He also had this to say to President Obama: "We are focused on balancing our budget. It would be wise for the government and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budgets, which they are a long way off from doing."

At American Thinker, Joseph Ashby says that the demonstrations in Wisconsin are "eerily similar" to recent protests abroad; clearly, he writes, the Mob in Madison see themselves as very like the Crowd in Cairo. Not so fast, says Ashby: "The public employees' desire to align themselves with the angels notwithstanding, their protest is more Greece than Egypt." At the same site, Sonny Palermo writes that the runaway senators in Wisconsin are making a mockery of Democracy.

On Friday, more than 600 teachers in the Madison, WI school district called in "sick" to attend the protests, forcing the state's largest school district to close down for the day. Some on the other side are encouraging parents to temporarily disenroll their children from the public schools and shut them down. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal is calling for the the teachers and Senators to get over their "snit" and get back to work.

Charles Krauthammer weighs in on Obama's sweet words on the side of the unions: "In the end it will sink the country at the state and national level."



And this is quite hilarious. Even Joe Klein of all people (good Lord) at Time Rag is chastising the Democrats for running away from the vote in Wisconsin: I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process? Isn't it interesting that some of those who--rightly--protest the assorted Republican efforts to stymie majority rule in the U.S. Senate are celebrating the Democratic efforts to stymie the same in the Wisconsin Senate?

And finally, here we go, today's example of the "new civility" from the Left. And I'm just sure the lamestream media is reporting this all day long. That's sarcasm. We haven't forgotten the completely unhinged, ginned-up "hysteria" on the Left about Sarah Palin and her "Bulls Eye map" that was reported ad nauseam in the media.  



I plan to watch for coverage of the Tea Party counter-rally, starting at noon today, which I'm hoping will be covered by Fox News, but we'll see. If not, I know it will be well-covered by Tea Party people there with their cameras. Then I think I need to make plans to go to Ohio when this issue hits there. Had I known about today's rally sooner (I just wasn't paying attention--and this is how we lose democracy), I would be on a bus this morning, headed to Madison from St. Louis.

Update. Right Network interview with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker today. h/t to Gateway Pundit.

Governor Walker on what will happen if his proposals are not passed: It means 5,500 state workers would be laid off. It means anywhere from 5,000- 6,000 local employees would have to be laid off. That’s anywhere from 10,000 to 12,000 people in a time when we have a 7.5% unemployment rate. We can’t afford to have anyone laid off. I’m trying to save jobs.



Updates from Madison posted by Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit. There was some really charming leftist crap there today, but as Hoft said, at least they didn't beat any skulls on the cement.

Niall Ferguson, Obama on Egypt:
"Flip followed by flop followed by flip"

Niall Ferguson, Harvard professor and new Newsweek columnist. Oh my. . . when you've lost Harvard and Newsweek--just sayin'. MSNBC had Ferguson on the "Morning Joe" show. The clip from the show is below.  Here's a link to his column that appeared in Newsweek.

Here's a partial transcript from the video, but first from a commenter at HotAir: Question: How many libs does it take to out-argue one man with a brain? Answer: Unknown, but obviously more than five.

"Mubarik was old and sick, yet nobody [in Obama's administration] seems to have considered the proposition that there would not be an orderly transition to his son taking over. You have to have a strategy, which means prioritizing, and you have to scenario-build. They did neither. . . . You cannot make up the foreign policy of a superpower as you go along." This guy really took off the gloves. When asked if O's administration was "overly sensitive" about looking like they were taking over in a soverign country (??), Ferguson said, "No, they just looked like they hadn't a clue. It was as simple as that. . . . We haven't got a plan here, and if we don't have a plan to build a secular democracy here in Egypt, it's not going to happen."

The professor was asked if he sees any stars or big thinkers in foreign policy this administration, "and if so, who are they." His answer: "None. The National Security Advisors have been mediocrities." The previous security advisor, Jim Jones, while Ferguson says, "I'm sure he's a very nice person," but as a strategic thinker, "he's a C-minus." The present person in that position was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae. "It's embarrassing."

"President Obama is one of the least experienced men in terms of foreign policy ever to occupy the White House, and yet he has advisors around him who are, frankly, second if not third-rate. . . . And some of us said this, when he ran for election, that it was a huge risk to put somebody with that kind of experience into a position of Commander-in-Chief of the United States. I think what we're seeing unfold in Egypt reveals the truth of that statement."

"I do think that the president regards making touchy-feely speeches as a substitute for having a strategy. . . . Most revolutions lead, not to happy-clappy democracies, but to periods of internal turmoil, often to periods of terror, and they also lead to internal aggression . . . .The scenarios that the Israelis are looking at involve a transition, not to some peaceful and amicable democracy, but to a Muslem Brotherhood dominated regime, which then leads to an aggressive policy towards Israel. This is not a zero-probability scenario; this is a high-propability scenario, and as far as I can see, the president isn't considering it."

"As far as I can see, President Obama's strategic concept is, 'I'm not George W. Bush--love me.'"

"Remember what was said in that Cairo speech, going back to 2009. Mr. Obama said, that in his view, Islam was a religion of peace and tolerance. Well, we'll just see how peaceful and tolerant the Muslem Brotherhood is if it is successful in getting into power in the months ahead. I think those words will come back to haunt Mr. Obama."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And here's the Rock Star himself, Cairo, 2009. That seems like about two decades ago. He was sure looking like Mr. Cool back then, at least in his own mind.

What has Andrew Breitbart been up to lately?

Updates below: (This statement is from Andrew Breitbard) On Thursday, February 10th, at CPAC, I will release to the press, bloggers and citizen journalists two hours of complete, unedited audio of a behind-closed-doors meeting directly related to the Pigford case that show direct evidence of fraud and abuse in the settlement. This audio will be released with a set of notes making it easier to navigate and find specific sections and statements.

He's been investigating the Pigford fraud controversy. This is huge. Breitbart's presser today began with Michelle Bachmann asking why Eric Holder has yet to investigate the allegations of widespread fraud.  Bachmann said that “people are milking the system for all it’s worth,” and that the money belongs to black farmers who actually suffered discrimination.  “We have a tremendous story to tell today,” Bachmann said, calling it “a stunning story.”

Breitbart: "The Republican Party is too stupid or cowardly to take on this absolute injustice, not just against the American taxpayer, but against the original Black farmers who now, they claim to have gotten justice."

h/t to HotAir, "Live Blog, Breitbart presser on Pigford." Click on the link for more.

Breitbart has released a two-hour video today recapping his seven-month involvement in the case. Quoting from HotAir: Breitbart then described how he reached out to Lee Stranahan from the Huffington Post to check the story out for himself.  Breitbart says that he was aware that his conservative background would tend to discredit his investigation of Pigford, and wanted Stranahan to pursue it independently.

Here's Breitbart talking about the Pigford fraud scheme. Again, h/t to HotAir.





Update. Here's a link to an article at Pajamas Media: CPAC Presser--The great Pigford fraud

Update #2. Here's the link to the issue at Breitbart's Big Government: CPAC Release of Explosive Pigford Undercover Audio Evidence, by Andrew Breitbart.

Health Care Mandate Is Unconstitutional,
Says Florida Judge

The people writing and voting for the ObamaCare bill were both arrogant and stupid. For an excellent discussion of the issue, see Michelle Malkin's post: "Hey, remember when conservatives objected to the Obamacare federal individual mandate on constitutional grounds and the liberal establishment laughed?"

Plus, of course, if ObamaCare is so great, then why all the waivers? Malkin say when she last examined the list of "privileged escapees" from ObamaCare given out by the govenrment, the number was 222. This past week, the list suddenly grew to 729--plus four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee). Plus four SEIU locals, bringing the total number of ObamaCare-promoting SEIU escapees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals. And we know that list will grow. The Hill reported last week that the GOP freshman (Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.) put in charge of a congressional oversight committee on health says he'll use his powers to investigate waivers given to businesses or individuals for any part of the new healthcare reform bill. "If there are exemptions," Gowdy said, "what was the process by which those exemptions were sought and given?" What, indeed.

I love Ann Coulter. "If Congress can force all citizens to buy a product--if this is Constitutional, then Republicans should turn around and mandate that all persons should be forced to purchase a gun and a Bible.  And, there’s a lot more evidence that owning a gun and a Bible is better for society than everyone having to buy health insurance.”

Ann has a way with words, doesn't she? She also has a way of making the absurdity of the other side's argument crystal clear.



Update. The White House has responded to the Florida judge's ruling, reported at Forbes: "Obama Administration Fires Back at Judge Vinson and His Decision." Spokesperson Stephanie Cutter wrote on the White House blog that the ruling is a "plain case of judicial overreaching." Really? Good try, Stephanie.

Update #2. Here is an exerpt of Judge Vinson's decision plus a link to the entire 78-page ruling. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

The issue is the unserverability of the mandate, which, as Greta Van Susteren at Fox News has explained: It was the first time a federal judge declared the entire law unconstitutional, saying that the mandate requiring every American to purchase healthcare cannot be severed from the bill, because it does not contain a severability clause. Van Susteren also said not putting a severability clause in Obamacare, which would have allowed the mandate to be removed, while the rest of the law stood, was “so stupid. With all due respect, any idiot knows to put a severability clause in a statute. This is not hugely sophisticated stuff,” said Van Susteren.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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 #2. A sad deal, from Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit: "Sputnik Fail: After Defunding NASA, Obama Uses Soviet Space Program to Rally Americans to SOTU."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

h/t to Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit

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

There are more cost estimates from the Hawaii Reporter:

• $250,000 overtime pay for the Honolulu Police Dept. to guard the president. Who pays for that?
• an 18-automobile entourage whenever Obama leaves his residence, even for a 5-minute outing to buy shaved ice. Who pays for that?
• the two-dozen White House staff member group, staying at the Moana Surfrider, descirbed as "exclusive, prestigious, quaint, and expensive." Who pays for that?
• Before the president and family arrive, homeowners accommodate weeks of inspections by Secret Service agents who can appear at any time. The Secret Service performs ground, sea and air surveillance of the homes and surrounding properties and background checks on the homeowners’ employees, contractors and neighbors. The telephone company spends several days adding secure phone lines underground. The Secret Service disables the homeowners’ security systems, sets up their own and erects some sort of force field that detects movement in the area. Who pays for that?

I am also sick to death of hearing that Obama's living-large vacation/lifestyle is "in line" with other presidents, particularly George Bush. That is simply absurdly laughable. George Bush cutting brush on his ranch in Crawford, TX hardly is cost-equivalent to our fey little Obama golfing in Hawaii. Give me a break.

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

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

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

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

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

I give him all the respect he deserves. . .

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