Big Zero's approval numbers--
lowest evah

A new poll out this morning from Quinnipiac of over 2000 registered voters nationwide puts Obama's approval number at 42%, the lowest in any Q-poll for The Won, with 48% disapproving. Also, 50% to 41% say he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012, both all-time lows. Hooray. It's a start in the right direction. I'm hoping for something in the mid-30s. Hope & change, baby.

What's causing his numbers to tank? Q says that it's coming from O's handling of: "the budget deficit, the economy, foreign policy, health care, and energy policy." Oh, only that? heh.

P.S. Big Zero's job approval among independents, that group he "must have" for re-election: 39/50.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir makes a good point: normally a military action allows a President an opportunity to demonstrate his strong leadership qualities. Zero squandered his by leaving the country running away to Rio without addressing the country. Morrissey says that if O can't turn this around, then he's in big trouble: "Few Presidents win a second term on a 41/50 re-elect number, especially when seen as a weak leader on top of it."

More Incoherent than Usual:
The O-BOMB-A Doctrine

It goes something like this:

There will be times when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.

So if, for example, there's a bloodbath looming in Benghazi, then we as Americans have a special duty because of our exceptional values to act; but if the world isn't with us and we can't do it as part of an international effort--then forget it. And we especially have to ask permission from the corrupt U.N. and the Arab League before we can put our American exceptionalism into action.

Have I got that right?

This is from a reader-response over at HotAir: American exceptionalism means we can rescue the Libyans because they have a ruthless dictator, but we’ll make an exception for Saddam Hussein. That was about attacking a nation that never hurt us so that we could take their oil. Oh. Wait. That was Libya, too. So, America has this tradition and values, plus, we’re the only nation with the power to stop bloodbaths. Yes, American exceptionalism means we can save anyone, except if we don’t have the permsission of the United Nations and/or the Arab League. What’s more, we aren’t in Libya for regime change, except that Ghaddafi has to go or the bloodbath will simply be postponed.

But the lamestream media will give this guy a pass all day long.

Here's The NYT editorial page this morning trying to make sense of this hash: "President Obama on Libya." The editorial actually says it is hoping for "humane and competent" governing structures from the rebels. Really? More hope and change--it's worked so well for the U.S. for the past two years.

The LA Times editorial thinks that Obama addressed the "thorny questions" of Libya with "cogency and clarity"--but he wasn't always persuasive.

Here are some reactions from the other side. Read the response at American Thinker: "Obama's Scary Discomfort with American Power." Obama never offers a robust defense of American power without subordinating it to the more pressing matter of leveling the global playing field. "But it is my deeply held belief," Obama said a 2009 speech to the U.N., "that in the year 2009 ... the interests of nations and peoples are shared." .... When allied forces finally decided to strike Gaddafi by air, Obama gave his reluctant approval by phone from Brazil. He also authorized his top commander on the ground, Admiral Mike Mullen, to tell reporters that the goals of the international campaign "are limited and it isn't about seeing him go."

Or this one from the Washington Examiner: "UN 'Authorization' Is the Emperor's New Fig Leaf." Equally offensive is the emerging legal pretext for the war, in which UN authorization supposedly eliminates the need for a congressional vote."Why not go to Congress?" ABC's Jake Tapper asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday."We would welcome congressional support," Clinton replied, but this is an "internationally authorized intervention."

Covering the outrage brewing in some quarters on the Hill, Politico quotes an irate Democratic congressman: "They consulted the Arab League. They consulted the United Nations. They did not consult the United States Congress." That's what we've come to.Will Congress put up with it?

Here is Sen. Rand Paul's (R-KY) response to Obama's address:



I have only one question for the rabidly anti-war Left (who are amazingly silent as The Won takes us into War Number Three): How do you like your brown-eyed boy? And no, that's not raaaaaacist. It's a literary reference, to an E.E. Cummings' poem, "Buffalo Bill": how do you like your blue-eyed boy, Mr. Death?

Update. My prediction: things are not going to go well. This morning, CBS and Reuters, both normally huge water-carriers for Big Zero, are reporting that Gaddafi's "better armed and organized troops" are pushing the rebels back east, and that the rebel retreat looks more like a "rout." Big freaking surprise, when you have the U.N., the Arab League, and NATO leading the way. Go get 'em, Barry, that's the way to lead from behind, our new tradition of American leadership in the world.

Exit Question. Can we just call him O-BOMB-A now?

Arguing With Liberals: The New York Times

Let's see if I can recreate this online discussion that I was having on another website with a self-avowed liberal.

We were discussing a memoir written by novelist Joyce Carol Oates: A Widow's Story: A Memoir. JCO is the perfect picture (and almost a self-parody) of an academic leftist liberal, having taught writing at Princeton since 1978. This is what she wrote in her book: Post 9/11 America! The war in Iraq! The coolly calibrated manipulation of the credulous American public, by an administration bent upon stoking paranoid partriotism! Avidly reading the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, The New Yorker, and Harper's, like so many of our Princeton friends and colleagues, Ray is one of those choked with indignation, alarm; a despiser of the war crimes of the Bush administration as of its cunning, hypocrisy, and cynicism; it's skill at manipulating the large percentage of the population that seems immune to logic as to common sense, and history. Ray's natural optimism--his optimist-gardener soul--has been blunted to a degree by months, years, of this active and largely frustrated dislike of all that George W. Bush represents.

And I said: That's probably as perfect a description of the leftist condescending elitist academic "smarter-than-thou" class as I've ever read. Joyce seems to stop just short of blaming Bush for her husband's death, since this description comes in the scene that has him hunched over the kitchen table the morning he took ill, surrounded by his newspapers and magazines: the implication--distress over Bush knocked out his immune system and put him at risk for the pneumonia that killed him. That evil man, George Bush.

And she said: As for the leanings of the New Yorker, well, I sort of lean that way myself, so I might not have noticed their leaning - a phenomenon of parallel lines [emphasis mine--no shit, Sherlock.]. I just hope I don't come across as condescending. There are merits to a lot of points of view. (That doesn't mean I'm going to be kind to Republicans who want to keep farm subsidies and cut food stamp allocations, however.) I have rather conservative relatives in Ohio, and I've very careful not to criticize their views, although discussion on issues sometimes reveals that they don't get much of a variety of news source [this is code for: THEY WATCH FOX NEWS]. I suppose some would say the same about me, but I feel sufficiently ambivalent about the issues to suggest at least some variety. Huh?

And I said: I don't have any problem with the NYer leaning left, although as I said, I think they made a mistake changing their "no endorsement" policy. My problem is with readers of the mag who don't even know which way it leans, or who insist it has no agenda, that it's somewhere "in the middle" or apolitical. All I'm asking is that magazines such as this, newspapers such as The New York Times--admit who you are! What's wrong with that? When I read The Weekly Standard, for example, I have no problem acknowledging their right-leaning stance. Why can't the left do the same thing?

And she said (finally--I knew she would say this or something like it if she didn't run away from the conversation first): I have heard many conservatives claim the NYTimes is left-leaning, to which I say, wow, what would you have thought of the old Village Voice, the Nation, Mother Jones, the Progressive, etc etc. The old Grey Lady seems pretty middle-of-the-road to me, and always has.

And I said: Just because you can site farther left-leaning rags than The NYT, that doesn't therefore prove your argument that The NYT is moderate.

Let's assume that a paper's editorial board drives the content of the paper--can we agree on that? Then let's look at the people on the Editorial Board if you think The NYT is "in the middle." If we made this a "which of these people leans left" drinking game, we would be plowed before we got halfway through the list:

Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal (Check out his coverage of the Bush 1992 presidential campaign if you think he's "moderate")

Deputy Editor Carla Anne Robbins, who holds an M.A. and PhD in poli sci from Berkeley (enough said--or do you think 6 or so years at Berkeley would encourage someone to be "middle of the road"?)

Science Editor Phillip M. Boffey, who, for example, writes about global warming as established science.

National affairs/national politics editor David Firestone. His recent article about Obama's State of the Union speech starts this way: "With his lips pursed, body tense and applause sparing, John Boehner was restless in the speaker’s chair during President Obama’s State of the Union address." Really? Did Firestone ever have anything to say about the seal-clapping, eye-blinking, jack-in-the-box behavior of Nancy Pelosi in the speaker's chair? I doubt it.

Law, civil rights, and national affairs editor, Dorothy Samuels, who served for four years as executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the largest affiliate of the national A.C.L.U.

Education, race (race??), and culture editor, Brent Staples, PhD in psychology from the U of Chicago.

Economic Issues and Tax Policy editor, Teresa Tritch, former contributing editor for the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Seriously, I told my liberal friend, there are plenty of fine conservative think-tanks where The NYT could find someone with excellent qualifications for a position of "economic issues and tax policy editor"--or any of these other editorial positions--if they were really looking for a balance or looking to be "middle of the road".

Can you find even one right-wing conservative on the editorial board? --But wait, you've said the paper is "pretty middle-of-the-road," so for that to be true, wouldn't you need to find that half of the editorial board is conservative? I'd settle for 40/60. Even 30/70.

Look at the paper's presidential endorsements if you think they're "pretty middle-of-the-road": 2008, Barack Obama, Democrat; 2004, John Kerry, Democrat; 2000, Al Gore, Democrat; 1996 and 1992, Bill Clinton, Democrat; 1988, Michael Dukakis, Democrat; 1984, Walter Mondale, Democrat; 1980, 1976, Jimmy Carter, Democrat; 1972, George McGovern, Democrat. You have to go back to 1956, Eisenhower, before you find The NYT endorsing a Republican for president.

Look at not only their editorial stance, but also at their stand in the articles on issues of the day: global warming, Obama's health care bill, what to do about our U.S./Mexican border, the U.S. energy policy, what is happening with Gov. Walker and the unions in Wisconsin.

Anywho, that's enough for me. I do not find it to be an outrageous or even inaccurate statement to say that The NYT "leans left." And as I said before, what bothers me (and part of this is of course my own speculation) is that probably most of the people who read the paper would say, like you, that the paper "seems pretty middle-of-the-road."

And she said: "...crickets..."

Bush the Babykiller; Obama the Man of Peace

I found this over at the Weekly Standard: "What's the Difference Between Libya and Iraq?"

An Xtranormal video on why it doesn't make sense to accept Libya, but not Iraq:



I guess a question this mess in Libya brings to mind is this one: Did we learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan? Here's a discussion at the Center for a New American Security: Two Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan That May Not Apply to Libya (But Probably Do) "

From the article: Although I have a lot of tactical, operational, and theoretical lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan that might interest readers of this blog, at the end of the day, my personal lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan boil down to the following: "Well, this has been hard, bloody, painful and expensive. Let us think very hard before ever doing it again."

Here is The Atlantic pointing out the "wildly inaccurate and misleading" reporting at Reuters: about the comparison of Bush and Obama, going to war. If the whores of the wheezebag leftist press are willing to tell any lie in order to back up their brown-eyed boy in the White House, then I don't know where that leaves any of us.

Hillary, Our Commander-in-Chief

OK, class, let's try to imagine this one: George W. Bush sending Condolleeza Rice to the microphone to tell the American people that he's sending troops into harm's way.

Obama evidently has never had this commander-in-chief thing explained to him in a nuanced-enough way that he can grasp what it means. Or else he just isn't interested in that part of being POTUS. The perks of the job--you bet, he'll take those all day long. The real work of the job, not so much.

Thursday afternoon, Hillary was sent out in front of the cameras to explain to the American people what roles NATO and the U.S. will play in enforcing the no-fly zone. She started with, "Let me be clear," and frankly, the woman should get an Academy Award for being able to utter that phrase with a straight face. I can hardly wait for her memoirs.

As Politico reported, Obama is successfully resisting the pressure he's getting to deliver an Oval Office speech explaining to the American people what in God's name he's doing in Libya. His aids are saying that while he might talk about Libya in the coming days, he's not likely to "succumb to pressure" to deliver a "long, explanatory address." Well, that's a first! As Windbag-in-Chief, this must certainly be the first time in his narcissistic life that he hasn't wanted to come before a crowd and give people the opportunity to listen to one of his droning, professorial lectures.

It's simply unbelievable the verbiage about Obama's Great Libyan Adventure that's coming out of the White House. His 12-year-old press sec'y, Jay Carney, said on Thursday that this is "a time-limited, scope-limited military action." All I can say is, you f_cks have no right to ask our military men and women to die for something that none of you have the balls to call a war. Let a "scope-limited" bomb hit the White House and see how fast you scream, "War." Let a "time-limited" bullet hit you in the head, and see how fast you call it War.

Byron York, at the Washington Examiner, writes a good article: "Obama fails to grasp the gravity of going to war." Here's an excerpt; the entire article is a must-read: "I see Obama's visiting the United States," said Rush Limbaugh on Thursday, the president's first full day back in Washington after a spring break diplomatic tour of Latin America. For the White House, it was a touch of well-deserved sarcasm; Obama's absence at the start of the Libyan hostilities, along with his haphazard conversations with members of Congress and his nonexistent effort to prepare the American public for war, left more than a few Washington insiders shaking their heads over how the president could have mishandled things so badly.

Here's an article from today's WSJ by Peggy Noonan: "The Speech Obama Hasn't Given." It all seems rather mad, doesn't it? The decision to become involved militarily in the Libyan civil war couldn't take place within a less hospitable context. The U.S. is reeling from spending and deficits, we're already in two wars, our military has been stretched to the limit, we're restive at home, and no one, really, sees President Obama as the kind of leader you'd follow over the top. "This way, men!" "No, I think I'll stay in my trench." People didn't hire him to start battles but to end them. They didn't expect him to open new fronts. Did he not know this?. . . Without a formal and extended statement, the air of weirdness, uncertainty and confusion that surrounds this endeavor will only deepen. Read the entire article.

God bless our troops. Obviously these Marines were soluting the Office of the Presidency, not this fey, physically awkward little man. "Commander-in-Chief"--as former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, has said, Obama's actions would be a joke if the situation weren't so deadly serious.

Update. Saturday, still waiting for Obama to make his speech to the American people... and as we wait for Barry Soetoro to come out with something substantive about why he's bombing Libya and what his plans are going forward, we can amuse ourselves with nuggets like this one from 2007: Candidate Obama, pandering to the anti-war left, arguing that decisions of foreign policy and military action must involve a discussion with the American people. Heh.



Here's a leg-slapper from Weasel Zippers, quoting Senator Barack Hussein Obama, 20 December 2007:

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The full interview is at WZ.

Yes We Can-Can!

This video is from one of the greatest commenters evah, Granny Jan, at my favorite blog, Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog. These people keep me laughing and keep me sane during these strange and dark days of the Obama Administration.

Moo-Chelle, I want you to know that the Obama Administration is the first time in my adult life that I've been completely embarrassed by the First Lady of the United States.

16 Outfits in 4 Days



Moo-Chelle has bee presented in the fashion magazines and leftist blogs as a FASHION ICON. They tried to push her as the second coming of Jackie O! Well, I think they've given up on that, and none too soon. Moo-Chelle, I knew Jackie O! and you are no Jackie O!

Below is how our First Lady dresses when representing our country. You can "do casual," as Jackie Kennedy demonstrates in the picture above; but to dress like a hulking mental case as you fly around the world, representing the citizens of the U.S., is simply beyond the pale. 1/20/2013. I am counting the days. What is that on her feet? Fashion-forward Ace bandages, no doubt. For the love of God. We get it, Michelle, you really, really are not proud of your country, and you want to embarrass the crap out of all of us.

Happy Birthday to ObamaCare

This piece of "cake" legislation is still around, but hopefully not forever. Here are some interesting recent developments:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), one of ObamaCare's biggest supporters, is now looking into how an ObamaCare wiaver might work for the City of New York. You have to love the irony of that one.

So what's with the ObamaCare waivers, anyway? Well, when it comes to ObamaCare, evidently some people are more equal than others. The Hill reports that some ObamaCare wiaver requests have been approved even as Health and Human Services (HHS) denies others.

So why are some waivers being accepted and others rejected? A group called Crossroads GPS, started by Karl Rove, has been trying to find that out and has been stonewalled by the Obama Administration. Consequently, Crossroads is suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over their failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. Stay tuned.

It turns out the CEO of Starbucks is "rethinking" his previous support of ObamaCare. Come to think of it, Howard Schultz says, ObamaCare's employer requirements will impose "too great" a pressure on small businesses. No.Duh. And Howard, it took you a whole YEAR to figure that one out?

Operation "Odyssey Dawn"

h/t for the image to Caffeinated Thoughts

For the first year and a half of his administration, our friend Barry blamed Bush to make his policies look better; now BO's tactic seems to be to childishly smear Bush.

Read the excellent article by John Hayward at Human Events: "The Bush Smear: Obama makes a revealing missstatement in Chile."

[T]he President declared: "In the past there have been times when the United States acted unilaterally or did not have full international support, and as a consequence typically it was the United States military that ended up bearing the entire burden."

Odyssey Dawn [is that just the most perfect name for a military operation coming from O's administration--evah?--I mean, it's simply embarrassing] is only four days old. Unlike Bush, Obama made no effort to prepare the American people for the operation, and now that the initial surprise has worn off, significant questions are being asked about his authority to launch these attacks. The concept of taking executive action to counter an imminent threat was arguable in Bush’s case – and people have been arguing about it for years – but utterly risible with respect to Libya. Indeed, the Administration hasn’t even tried to advance such an argument.

Against this backdrop, Obama decided to throw out an offhanded smear of his predecessor… a slander so transparently false that it was debunked within minutes? That’s a disconnect with reality so profound that it verges on mental illness. It also highlights just how half-hearted and poorly thought out this decision was.

The whole article is worth the read.

From Politico: "John Boehner rips President Obama on Libya" It seems that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has stepped up his critique of Big Zero's handling of military operations in Libya. He sent the president a letter demanding answers to the run-up to the engagement: I and many other members of the House of Representatives are troubled that U.S. military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress, and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America's role is in achieving that mission. In fact, the limited, sometimes contradictory, case made to the American people by members of your Administration has left some fundamental questions about our engagement unanswered. At the same time, by contrast, it appears your Administration has consulted extensively on these same matters with foreign entities such as the United Nations and the Arab League.

Boehner goes on to say that he hopes Obama will provide a "clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya tand how it will be achieved" and goes on to spell out the questions that he has for the Executive branch. The letter ends: The American people take the use of military action seriously, as does the House of Representatives. It is regrettable that no opportunity was afforded to consult with Congressional leaders, as was the custom of your predecessors, before your decision as Commander-in-Chief to deploy into combat the men and women of our Armed Forces. Understanding some information required to respond may be classified, I look forward to a complete response.

You're not the King of the Americas just yet, Barry. You really do have to answer to the other co-equal branch of government.

Update: Obama Administration: THIS IS NOT A WAR, dammit. Libya is a "kinetic military action."

AWOL

Or, as Ed Morrissey at HotAir calls it, "The Empty Office Presidency." As he says, Obama wasn't the only one out of the country when he sent troops into harm's way in Libya:
And where was the defense secretary at this time? The second in civilian command of the military also left town on the 20th. Gates was scheduled to leave on the 19th, but he waited a day to “keep tabs” on the military action in Libya. Did he fly to consult with a member of the military coalition imposing the no-fly zone to coordinate efforts, as Obama announced two days earlier? Not exactly; Gates flew to Russia, which had to be talked out of vetoing U.N. Resolution 1973.

Morrissey points out yet another interesting comparison in fake liberal outrage: Once again, let’s remember the stink that arose when Chris Christie and his lieutenant governor Kim Guadagno both left New Jersey for vacations at the end of last year and a freak snowstorm locked up the Garden State.  Liberals screamed about the dereliction of duty in having both executives out of state when an emergency arose.  Now we have the two men in civilian command of the military out of the country when starting a new war.

Update. This is what happens without American leadership. Who's in charge?  That's the headline of an article at the UK Mail online. Germany is pulling its forces out of NATO over continued disagreement over who will lead the campaign. Norway and Italy said their participation in air operations depends on settling who will be in command. Seriously? Defense Sec'y Gates is reported as saying, "We have never done something on the fly like this before." And Barry "The Warmonger" Obama is saying that it will be "days, not weeks" when America hands over its leadership role. This is what Obama calls leadership?

Update #2: Uncle Joe Biden "wants to make it clear." Yeah, Biden, we wonder if you mean what you say. "Iran is no immediate threat to the United States of America." Say it ain't so, Joe. So where was Joe when the missiles were launched at Libya?

War by Committee

Good grief. John Bolton: "This is a subject of ridicule, except it is deadly serious. It puts American lives in jeopardy. You cannot run wars by committee. . . . I think Congress and the general public need to return to this question: "Why is the President, so casually, giving up American command and control over American forces in this operation to any foreigners?"



Update. I saw this over on HotAir this morning. The name of the mission approved by Barry Obama is, "Operation Odyssey Dawn." Ed Morrissey suggests that Obama should have looked up "odyssey" in the dictionary, if his great Ivy League education didn't teach him what it means: "a long wandering or voyage, usually marked by many changes of fortune." Tweets someone called CanadianCynic: "Apparently, our Libyan adventure is called "Operation Odyssey Dawn" because "Operation Princess Rainbow Sparkle Pony" wasn't manly enough." Snort.

Update #2. So did the left believe all that crap they spewed during the George W. Bush years, or was it just faux outrage? Where is the anti-war left now?

Will somebody please explain to me
what we're doing in Libya?

One of my favorite blogs has done that, Missourah.com: "The Worst of Both Worlds."

The upcoming NATO operations will immediately require something called “rules of engagement” (ROE), and the ROE is going to be decided upon by an “international consensus” of politicians, and not military leaders.  And so, here we are again, in a situation a bit like Bosnia, entering a conflict that will be run by the bumbling bureaucrats at the United Nations.

Now would somebody please explain to me what Obama is doing in Brazil? American Thinker has an interesting take on Big Zero's Brazil trip: read Geoffrey P. Hunt's "Obama in Exile."

How to reconcile the optics of president Obama on his latest trip to Brazil? Being feted on the tarmac in Rio De Janeiro and later joining the dignitaries reviewing a Brazilian military parade, all while a new war has been started in Libya, our Asian ally lies in ruins, and federal government insolvency threatens our republic. This juxtaposition can only be seen through the lens of a self-imposed exile.

Obama is being chased by his own incompetence, forced to face it, unable to stare it down. Privately he must admit he is over his head and no one -- not in the legislature, in the labor unions, in the deep pockets of George Soros nor the salons of liberal media apologists and sympathetic academics -- can save his doomed presidency.

h/t for the image to HotAir. Seriously? Big Zero's administration is the most clueless bunch of hacks who ever inhabited the White House. Now all they need is to show O'Bummer on a Brazillian golf course. Wait for it.

This one is from Nate Beeler at The Washington Examiner.

Update: John F_ing Kerry will explain all of this to us: On Sunday, he was a talking head on one of the leftist network morning shows: "I would not call it going to war." This was as reports came in of five U.S. warships firing 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles at 20 different targets scattered across coastal towns in Libya. "This is a very limited operation that is not geared to try to get rid of Qadhafi [how many ways can we spell that name--5?]. He has not been targeted," said Lurch, apparently with a straight face.

Louis Farrakhan Instructs Obama:
"Be careful, my Brother"

h/t for this to HotAirPundit. This is Farrakhan going on a rant on Chicago radio. "Who the hell do you think you are?" he asks Big Zero. Actually, that seems like a good question, one that would better have been asked by the Fourth Estate in about June or July of 2008. The smirking, nodding guy next to Farrakhan is a work.



Update. Just wondering. How soon is Big Zero going to return his Nobel Peace Prize?

October 9, 2009: The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. Snort.

Have we all figured out yet that it's a mistake
to hire someone with no experience to be POTUS?

I find this Amateur Hour at the White House to be really quite frightening. Let's just tell Gaddafi what we will and won't do, and then he can make his plans from there. But the lamestream media will carry water for Big Zero all day long.



Obomber is using his "serious face" in this clip, speaking to the hard left. This is The Won covering his azz with his base--you know, the ones who screamed for years about Warmonger BushHitler.

Oh, and P.S. Obama, have a nice vacay in Brazil. Protesters have firebombed the U.S. Consolate in Brazil, but we won't hear any of that from the lamestream media either.
h/t GatewayPundit.

"Frankly, my toilets don't work,
and I blame people like you"

Freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is going to be someone to watch in the future. Actually, he's someone to watch right now. Here he is destroying a government bureaucrat during her testimony at the Energy and Resources Committee. Rand Paul asks her if she believes in choice--and he takes it from there. Hilarious. The woman has nothing--nothing--as a comeback.

This Is What a Mob Looks Like

The favorite chant of these deranged leftist goons in Wisconsin: "This is what Democracy looks like." No, it's not. See the clip of people breaking windows and breaking into the capitol building at Real Clear Politics. This is a mob, plain and simple. People on the other side of this issue are being warned to stay away since there's no telling what these people have brought into the building with them. There is no security--zero--reports Ann Althouse from Wisconsin: "ANYBODY CAN GET IN AND ANYBODY CAN BRING ANYTHING IN. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SECURITY WHATEVER."



Our favorite group of union thugs, the SEIU, are planning mass rallies in Wisconsin today. Here's their take on the events of Wednesday: "Late Wednesday night Republicans rigged the rules and stripped working families of their rights, and they did it without a Democrat present." There is so much wrong with that statement, it's impossible to know where to begin. h/t to Gateway Pundit.

For a good explanation of exactly what the Republicans did yesterday to pass the collective bargaining bill, see Hot Air: Breaking: Wisconsin Senate GOP to split off collective bargaining bill from budget, pass it separately? Update: Senate passes collective bargaining bill; Update: “Affront to democracy,” says … runaway Dem; Update: Capitol livestream added; Update: No security whatsoever

From the Weekly Standard blog by John McCormack, here's another explanation of what the Wisconsin Senate did last night: Without Democrats Present, Wisconsin Senate Voting on Largely-Intact Budget Repair Bill.

Update. "Don't be surprised if the protests today turn out to be a dud." That's from HotAir this morning. HotAir is reporting that things have returned to normal this morning, only a few remain inside the capitol building, and all is quiet so far outside.

From HotAir: It’s over. The fleebaggers lost, which is what happens in democracy when people refuse to engage while in the minority, especially when they demand to dictate outcomes to the majority.  The people of Wisconsin, and representative democracy, are the winners today.

Update #2. This is Gov. Walker's op-ed in the WSJ this morning: Why I'm Fighting in Wisconsin.

This was posted today in the Washington Post by Michael A. Walsh: The Left's War on Democracy. Let's call this what it is: a campaign to nullify the 2010 election, by a sore-loser party that doesn't like the results.

Wisconsin Tea Party Members to
"Take Out the Trash"

I love this. On Sunday at 1:00 p.m., people are showing up in Madison to help clean up the grounds around the capital, trashed by the slobs who have defaced the capitol building during two weeks of protests. This is being organized by Wisconsin Tea Partiers, who will show these leftist slobs that the majority of the people of Wisconsin have some class.



h/t to Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit.

Friday Afternoon Laugher

Thank you to Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog. My favorite blog.

(Alinsky Rule #5: Ridicule--a most potent weapon.)