Narcissist-In-Chief

It doesn't interest me here to get into the nuances of Obama's narcissism. Suffice it to say, I was raised by a toxic narcissist, so I know one when I see one. If you're really interested in learning something about narcissism, go here for one of the most informative and true sites (from the perspective of my 57 years of experience) about narcissism on the internet. What interests me today is George Will's recent column where he catalogues Obama's speeches:

On the 233rd day of his presidency, Barack Obama grabbed the country's lapels for the 263rd time—that was, as of last Wednesday, the count of his speeches, press conferences, town halls, interviews, and other public remarks. His speech to Congress was the 122nd time he had publicly discussed health care. Just 14 hours would pass before the 123rd, on Thursday morning. His incessant talking cannot combat what it has caused: An increasing number of Americans do not believe that he believes what he says.

Have we ever had a President who was so full of himself? Next week we can look forward to Obama being the "sole guest" on David Letterman's Monday show. This will be his sixth appearance on the show; he became the first sitting President in history to appear on any late-night talk show when he appeared on Letterman's show last March. But even before his Monday appearance on Letterman, be sure not to miss Obama's media blitz on the Sunday shows, when he will appear on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and the Spanish language network Univision. Appearing on FIVE Sunday talk shows is another historical record--congratulations, Obama. Of course he won't appear on Chris Wallace's Sunday show on Fox News. Big, big, big, big, BIG surprise.

Writes Adam Nagourney at The Caucus: If there’s one thing this White House doesn’t seem worried about, it is that Americans will get tired of seeing President Obama. His talk-show marathon will come after the speech on Wall Street today and a rally in Maryland later this week. At this point in his presidency, Obama's 114 interviews compare to 37 for President Bush at the same point in his presidency and 41 for President Clinton.

Oh, and don't forget he's already spoken to two joint sessions of Congress. At the rate he's going, he may catch President Woodrow Wilson, who between 1913 and 1919 spoke to 24 joint sessions. Said Betty Koed, associate historian of the Senate, “Wilson was great for meeting in person with people. He used these addresses as a means to gain popular support for his wartime policies and also to bend arms in Congress.” Wilson aside (and actually, Wilson is the former president that I think Obama is the most like--not Lincoln, as he seems to think), Presidents usually reserve joint session speeches for a crisis or emergency, like a declaration of war, or for other weighty matters, like JFK's pledge to land Americans on the moon. Joint session addresses are normally rare, and those that aren't State of the Union speeches are rarer still. However, Obama being who he is, something tells me the country had better prepare for these joint session events to become a standard part of Obama's repertoire.

Exit question: Does this man have any idea what actual work as President of the United States he ought to be doing--any idea?

The "Mainstream" Media Commits Suicide

The story writes itself; a picture really is worth 1,000 words. This current Newsweek cover says just about everything I've been wanting to say lately about the current state of the former mainstream media. I saw this cover yesterday as I was standing in line to pay for my groceries. That's the only way I ever would have seen this issue, since I quit reading Newsweek at least 20 years ago. I don't even care what the article is about. This is sickening drivel on so many levels.

Last night on one of the Fox shows I heard Bernard Goldberg say that we simply must quit calling the traditional media "mainstream." I couldn't agree more. Goldberg has a post on his website, titled "Mainstream Media Must Go!" I've been struggling throughout this blog to figure out what to call these people. I started out with "so-called mainstream media." Then I tried "former mainstream media." I've also tried "dinosaur media." None of those has worked for me, to express the level of disdain and disgust I feel for these "professionals" who have, in my opinion, flipped from simple leftist bias into fulminating advocacy of the left-wing all-Obama-all-the-time-media in the last couple of weeks. As Goldberg says in his article, "Since there is very little mainstream about the so-called mainstream media, it’s time for all of us to stop using such a misleading term – and come up with something new."

Goldberg asked for suggestions about what to call the traditional media. He got some good ones:

• MSM: Mass Suicidal Miscreants
• Formerly Known as Media (FKAM)
• Ministry of Truth
• Ass-Hat Media
• MSM: Mindless State Mouthpieces
• Dead Stream Media
• Prog-Duh (close to Pravda--good one)
• Move On Media (there's nothing to see here--I like that one)
• SRM, State-Run Media

That last one is the winner for me. The former mainstream media is so in-the-tank for the Obama administration that they simply refuse to cover the most interesting and important stories of the day--the scandal at ACORN being one of the most egregious recent examples.

John Nolte has written in a recent article at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood website: "Our liberal friends may not like hearing Van Jones, the NEA and ACORN are under fire, but they still want to know. What a disappointing revelation it must be to open the New York Times or turn on the network news only to discover after the curtain has already fallen that one of Obama’s Czars was forced to resign or that the U.S. Census Bureau let ACORN go. . . . The liberal media is failing for the exact same reason a dozen-plus anti-war films flopped: propaganda is dull. No matter your politics, people want stimulation and information, not affirmation. Obviously, that’s not true for everyone, but it’s true enough that those media outlets who haven’t figured it out are either dancing on the edge of financial ruin or, like MSNBC, continuing to double down on stupid thinking it will increase their abysmal performance metrics."

So from now on, on this blog, instead of the MSM, Mainstream Media, it's now the SRM: the State-Run Media.

Update: On his radio show today, Glenn Beck said this: "The mainstream media is about to collapse of its own weight. . . . it is so far beyond just an agenda, just bias, it is so far beyond that. The paradigm is changing. . . . Let the chips fall where they may. This is about corruption. The media is putting the last nails in their own coffin. They don't even see it coming."

Update #2: We have a new winner for the name-the-media contest: Yellow Stream Media, because we are pissed about what's going on with what passes for "journalism" these days. The term works on another level because it's an ironic paean (pun intended--heh) to what cowards these people are, kowtowing to the administration and refusing to cover major news stories because they are bad news for Barry O. YSM: Yellow Stream Media--that's the best one yet!

Which Is It? Because somebody here is a fool

Either Obama is a fool and he believes his own numbers (in which case someone is lying to him) or he thinks the American people are fools and thinks they will believe his lies (in which case he is lying to us). In any case, there's a whole lot of lyin' going on. That brings to mind a good tee-shirt slogan: Joe Wilson Was Right.

Obama continues to push his ridiculous theme about the method he will use to pay for the health care bill. He will "save" us money by scrapping our broken system, the best health care system in the world, and giving us in its place ObamaCare so that we can be on a par with other third-rate health care systems around the world. He said it last Wednesday night, and he said it again over the weekend, that he will realize a four trillion dollar savings "over the long term"--from a health industry that generates 2.3 trillion each year.

And as I have said over and over again, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – period. This plan will be paid for. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we can successfully slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

So how long is Obama's "long term"? Over at HotAir, Ed Morrissey has put a real math guy on this problem. Morrissey says, using very generous interest figures, and assuming the savings don't get spent on anything else (hahahahahahaha), Obama will see his deficit reduced by $4 trillion by the year 2085. Whew, and I thought this health care plan thingy was going to cost us money. Morrissey calls this "faith-based math." Heh.

"As I have said over and over again ["repeatedly," yeah we get it], I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits"--which is Obama's version of the Big Lie. I remember this propaganda technique being explained by Miss Glee in my Seventh Grade social studies class: If a student came bouncing into class and told Miss Glee with a smile on his face that the tires on her car had been slashed, she wouldn't believe him because it's a small, obvious lie (well, that was over 40 years ago; if a student did that today, the teacher might believe him--but I digress). However, if the principal came to the classroom with a long, scary face and whispered into Miss Glee's ear that the campus police had found a bomb in the parking lot, of course she would believe him, since no principal would tell such a colossal lie.

Evidently Obama is hoping that by making his lie big enough, we will believe him and pass his health care bill. I'm thinking ObamaTeam has gone to that well once too often already. The "hope" part of Hope and Change was the biggest lie of all. Enough people believed that whopper to put the guy into office, but we're not gonna let him do it to us again.

Obama's Self-Adulation Continues: No Critics Wanted
Some thoughts on the 9/12 Washington, D.C. Tea Party event, and how it was ignored and trivialized by ObamaTeam and the dinosaur media, including updates on the numbers of people who attended

Here's a photo, taken from the White House website, of a crowd of Minnesota Obama supporters,  pictured reacting to Obama's speech about health care, the 124th speech he's given  on the subject since entering office not quite eight months ago. Obama left Washington, D.C. on Saturday to go to Minneapolis so that he could give a speech to 15,000 hand-picked people who agreed with his point of view on health care, although he could have stayed in town and heard about a million* people who had come to his own front lawn to tell him what they think. Evidently Obama would rather hear himself repeat his own tired platitudes than listen to anything the American people have to say--unless, of course, those people are shouting nothing but homogenized adulation and praise.

Well, that's a shame, because it would seem Obama missed a great party in Washington. Predictably, however, the historical whiteout by the formerly mainstream media has already begun. The same ABC coverage of Obama's inspiring, soaring speech in Minneapolis also reported that "thousands" of Tea Party people had converged on Washington. While I'm no expert on numbers collecting in the Washington Mall, even to my untrained eye the crowd looks like more than "thousands" to me. Here's what was said early on Saturday afternoon before editors could get control of the message:

• MSNBC anchor says to the reporter on site: "We are . . . seeing a birds’-eye view, and do you have any idea how many people are gathered here, because it looks like it’s really taking up the majority of Capitol Hill." I'm assuming that anchor will be sanctioned or fired on Monday morning for not following the party line of "thousands."
  
• CNN anchor: “Boy, you’ve got a huge crowd there, and it’s just been growing, it seems, by the minute." Doh--another one who didn't get the memo. Not a good career move over at CNN.
  

The formerly mainstream media says that it's childish to worry about the size of the Tea Party crowd. Charles Cooper at CBS news writes that there was a "respectable" turnout. Nate Silver at the website "Politics Done Right" calls it a "business-as-usual" rally. A guy named Rick Unger reports the "disappointing" unofficial crowd count at 25,000 at the same time that he gives no source for his number. To my mind, those three reports alone show that accurate numbers matter. Without an objective crowd estimate, "reporters" like these can minimize and trivialize any event that doesn't match their own political stripe--or they can inflate one that does. "Disputes over the size of gatherings, especially protests, are common, said Paul Wertheimer of Crowd Management Strategies. Large crowds of people "mean power in a political situation, or they mean money in a commercial situation. So the numbers are very important to the people who put on an event."

So I'm just wondering, since the numbers for this 9/12 event being reported are all over the place: has there never before been a crowd of people on the Washington, D.C. Mall? Is it really so impossible to get an accurate headcount of how many people were there? I've heard numbers ranging from 10,000 to 2 million. I'm sure the real number falls somewhere within that range, but come on. . . is that the best we can do?

Years ago, if memory serves, counting heads on the National Mall was a pretty routine deal when a large crowd showed up. In 1963, about 250,000 were there to hear Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. But I guess in 2009, the "rules" for counting heads on the Mall have changed and become more complicated (wow, what a shock that one is--is there anything we haven't managed to make more complicated in the last 50 years or so?). A count was made for President Obama's inauguration, but for that event the normal rules had to be "bent" (actually completely ignored) by the National Parks Service in order to provide a headcount of the people attending the inaugural. Writing in USA Today, reporter Martha T Moore tells us how it's done. Moore reports that the National Parks Service, just for Obama's inauguration, reversed a 13-year-old policy of not offering an official crowd estimate, a rule put in place evidently because of the controversy over the numbers attending the Million Man March in 1996. After that controversy, Moore writes, Congress stripped the Parks Service of the monies needed to perform the estimates. Moore doesn't give details that would explain either the original controversy or the logic behind why not doing estimates is an improvement. I'm just thinking, though: if I were someone who had spent years in a job, like at the Parks Service, putting eyeballs on crowds at the National Mall, it probably wouldn't take rules or a budget for me to make a reasonably good estimate of how many people showed up on any particular day. Moore's article shows it to be mainly a matter of a little knowledge mixed with some common sense--but both seem to be in pretty short supply these days.

Over at some blog called Moderate in the Middle (I won't link to the blog because it's slow to load), the question was asked: "If 1 million VOTERS descended on DC to be heard and no MSM reported it, would it make a sound? DAMN STRAIGHT BABY, 2010 will be a wipeout for the DEMS at the polls and for any Critter who continues to ignore the people…woohoo!" I guess that's my sentiment as well. The formerly mainstream media can ignore, trivialize, and ridicule these gatherings; ObamaTeam can do the same. But based on the Tea Party gatherings and town hall meetings I've attended, the issue that gets people who go to these things the most fired up is the idea that Washington isn't listening to them.

ObamaTeam and the MSM did a mighty fine job of campaigning and getting their guy elected in 2008. However, it seems to me that they're blowing it big time now. Underestimating their opponent may feel good today, but it will be a lousy strategy for election day come 2010 and 2012. So go right ahead, keep misunderestimating us, Team Obama.

My favorite sign of the D.C. event, spotted on a YouTube video: "King George Didn't Listen, Either!"

UPDATE: The numbers. If crowd numbers are of interest, and I guess it's obvious that to me they are, there's good information in a post at Riehl World blog. Although the numbers for Obama's inauguration were widely reported to be 2 million, Riehl says, that number is even more widely disputed, and he gives several examples, including a guy named Clark McPhail, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Illinois, who has been analyzing crowds on the National Mall since the 1960s and says that satellite images suggested the crowd at Obama's inauguration was probably one million. Riehl writes that as things stand now, the number generally accepted for Obama is a million plus. I've never seen any number except two million reported for Obama--the largest number of people for an inauguration evah, we were told. Another lie, evidently, since Lyndon Johnson's inauguration had 1.2 million.

Riehl gives a credible argument, including pictures, for saying that the number of people who attended the 9/12 event was about the same as the number that attended LBJ's inauguration. Hence Riehl's final point, the one that made me fall off my chair laughing: "Bottom line? It looks to me as if about as many people who showed up to welcome Obama into the WH a mere 8 or so months ago showed up yesterday in a mood to throw him out."

I'll take that number, and I'll double down on it in 2010.

Update #2: The Washington Examiner reported this:

On Friday the White House claimed they had no idea the rally was even planned. A ridiculous assertion that shows how dismissive the Obama administration and the Democrat-led Congress are of those who oppose their agenda. It is impossible to believe that President Obama knew nothing of the event. The denial is a perfect example of why the President is losing the trust of many Americans. He stretches his credibility to its limits, and beyond.

If ObamaTeam had "no idea" about the Saturday march on Washington, then I would say they're even more inept than they seem: Stuck On Stupid.

Update #3: Go here for an extreme high resolution photo taken from on top of the Capitol Building.

9/12 Tea Party Rally in Quincy, Illinois

We had a great time at the 9/12 Tea Party in Quincy on Saturday which was held in their Washington Park, site of the sixth Lincoln-Douglas debate. Interestingly, the Lincoln debate in 1858 was said to have 12,000 in attendance, which was also the estimate of the Tea Party crowd. OK, so the "numbers guy" who attended the event with me says "No way" about the 12,000 number, but he didn't take a walk around the park until late in the afternoon. Others estimated the crowd at 2,000. When I took a spin around the park at about 3:00 with my video camera, the whole park was filled. I don't want to lose my credibility here, so I say split the difference and call it 5,000. Regardless of the number attending, it was a gorgeous early fall day, sunny but not too humid or hot; the people were upbeat, happy to be there, and everyone was just plain salt-of-the-earth nice.

I heard Glenn Beck interview Andrew Breitbart, one of the speakers at the event. Breitbart lives near L.A., and was invited to speak at the Tea Party in Washington, D.C., but chose Quincy instead because he wanted to meet some "flyover country" people. He jokingly told Beck that he didn't know how to behave around such nice people--"I just don't know what to do with them." I accidently caught one of those nice people in this shot, above--notice the smiling older gentleman on the right, flashing a peace sign. We talked to this man later when he asked us about the significance of the yellow (Gadsden) flags that were being flown all through the crowd. What a nice man, as it's plain to see by his smiling face; he said he lived "just four miles down the road."

We had lots of great speakers today. A few were local politicians, but they didn't dominate the event, and they were far from the most interesting in the group. Along with Andrew Breitbart, we also had "Instapundit" (Glenn Reynolds), "Gateway Pundit" (Jim Hoft), Bill Hennessey, a St. Louis Tea Party original organizer, Dana Loesch, a firery young St. Louis radio personality, and Kevin Jackson, author of The Big Black Lie, a very funny guy. What a great day. If you couldn't be in Washington, D.C. with the 2 million-or-so souls who showed up for that Tea Party event (and again, maybe my numbers are off for that one, but so are everyone else's--see the above post), then Quincy was the place to be.

Some of the Tea Party organizers were sort of quietly talking about what's next? Well, stay tuned. What they plan is smaller than the Tea Parties, but it will have a big effect. Their newest plans are straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.This is great stuff and WE ARE JUST GETTING STARTED.

Update: Here is Bill Hennessey at the St. Louis Tea Party Coalition, thanking the people of Quincy, Illinois.

Never Forget

We Remember

Let's Play "ObamaCare Cliche Bingo"

I hope no one tried to make tonight's speech by Obama to the joint session of Congress into a drinking game. That would have been  dangerous and could have caused alcohol poisoning or even death. Instead I tried a little game of "ObamaCare Cliche Bingo."

Earlier today I wrote down some ObamaCliches that I was pretty sure he would revert to tonight. Now that the speech is over (yawn--there's good reason why people turn these speeches into drinking games, it's so tedious to sit through them otherwise--50 minutes, are you kidding me?). Here's how I did. Actually, I got so many of them that I'm pretty sure I could have written this thing myself.

• this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Darn, I missed that one. I should have at least gotten "economic crisis."
• breaking point. Another one missed. I'm not doing too well so far.
• 30 million Americans who cannot get coverage. Hey, that's not fair. Always before, it's been 47 million people without coverage. I cry foul. I was all ready for that one. OK, Barry, if you promise to pay attention, we'll try this one more time, although I don't have much hope that you'll get it this time, either. Twelve million of the 47 million uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but haven't enrolled; ten million make up illegal and legal immigrants and people who make enough money to buy insurance but choose not to do so; leaving 14 million Americans who can't afford health insurance. So give every one of those 14 million some sort of health insurance voucher, and LEAVE MY HEALTH INSURANCE ALONE. Obama's numbers are going in the right direction, but he's not there yet. Anywho, I'm gonna give myself a cliche for that one.
• the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankrupt-ceh. Cliche! Here's my line: Families pushed into bankrupt-ceh. He wasn't using his faux-folksy "accent" tonight, though. I think that might have been one reason why he never seemed to really get into a groove.
• give us time to do it right. Cliche! My line: We've gotta get this right.
• If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs. My line: Health premiums skyrocketing three times faster than wages. I can only give myself half a cliche for that one. I should have gotten the "if we do nothing" false dichotomy ("nothing" or "ObamaCare") that he loves to use. But I knew his speechwriters couldn't resist "skyrocketing"--they use it in every health care speech.
• insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. Oh hooray, I got that one in the line above. So with one line I got a cliche and a half. Not bad.
• Now, these are the facts. Nobody disputes them. Well, I was close. I think I can give myself a cliche. My line: The experts all agree. See, it's a darn good thing this wasn't a drinking game--I would have been out cold by now. As it is, my Cliche Bingo card is filling up fast.
• I've said. . . Oops, you know he wanted to say it--As I've said many times before--but he caught himself. So no cliche. Good one, Obama. Your guys were looking out for you on that one, since one of your biggest problems is that you've said all of this "many times before."
• And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. Cliche! 14,000 Americans losing health insurance every day. So at that rate, let's see, 300 million divided by 14,000 = OK, so in about 21,000 days then, not a single one of us will have health coverage. Seriously, that's one of the most intellectually dishonest lines he uses when he talks about health care. 14,000 lose their health care every day; how many thousands are put on new health care policies every day? But of course nobody calls him on this stuff, since the liberal media is so enthralled with his delivery that they don't bother with content. Frankly, I've never gotten that "great orator" thing about Obama--but I digress.
• Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. Cliche. People need to be assured of security and stability. That's one of his "new" themes--I knew for sure he would use those words somewhere in the speech, but I thought he would go to that well more often.
• The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. I certainly should have had that one. No cliche for me. Seriously, "games"? Is that what he thinks the debate over a 1,300-page bill that would take over one-sixth of our economy is--GAMES? I can't believe he says this stuff, but it's a staple in his speeches: "If you don't agree with me, then sit down and shut up."
• Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. Finally, he's changed up that tired old lie that he's used in these health care speeches at least 100 times. I'm giving myself a cliche for it anyway. If you like your health care, you can keep your health care. Heh. Nothing "requires" you to change--except maybe if your company drops its employee health insurance, then you'll be changing, like it or not.
• Now is the time to deliver on health care. Cliche again. The time to act is now. Honestly, I could have written this speech. Tonight was a pathetic wasted opportunity.
• our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. Cliche. Remember Ted Kennedy. And he certainly did, since he spent six (6) paragraphs on Kennedy. They also had his widow, Vicki Kennedy, sitting beside Michelle Obama, so every shot of Michelle also included Vicki's tragic face. I have nothing against Vicki Kennedy; I'm sure she loved her husband very much, and it must be a difficult time for her. But these Obama people are shameless exploiters. I'm surprised they didn't have 17 diabetics sitting in a row with "chopped off limbs."
• there's an agreement in this chamber on about 80% of what needs to be done. I should have had that one, since it's one of his "new" lines and he seems to have such a thing for numbers. No cliche.
• closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been. Cliche! We have never been this close. That's my new favorite ObamaCare cliche. I knew he wouldn't disappoint.
• Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics. Cliche again. The special interests are trying to scare the heck out of people. Obama, the only one afraid of honest debate is you. Man up, bro.

The only interesting moment of the night came when Representative Joe Wilson (R, South Carolina) yelled out "Liar" at one point during the speech. The furious shock on Nancy Pelosi's face almost made it worthwhile, listening to yet another nothing-new speech by Obama. Frankly, I didn't think Pelosi could show that much emotion with her plastic face. Unfortunately, Wilson later apologized, for what, I'm not sure, since he certainly wasn't wrong. I'm thinking his mother made him do it.* “This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” So when does Nancy Pelosi apologize to all the people who attended town hall meetings who she called "Nazis"? I'm still waiting for that apology.

Considering that not 30 seconds before this, Obama had just finished calling Sarah Palin, a "prominent politician"  (his term) a liar, I don't quite "get" their shock and dismay (actually, Obama, Sarah Palin is a private citizen, so calling her out is a little bitchy on your part): "It is a lie, plain and simple," said Obama, which caused the obligatory standing "seal clap" from his Democrat sycophants.

Actually, I'd like to see the House be more like the English House of Commons, where this sort of bad behavior and shouting out happens all the time.

*Update: Evidently, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, called for Joe Wilson to apologize: An incensed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went up to GOP Reps. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.) to complain about the outburst. "No president has ever had that happen," Emanuel said. "My advice is he apologize immediately. You know my number."

Rahm Emanuel, a childish whiner. I guess Joe Wilson didn't want a dead fish sent to his office, so he apologized.

Update #2: Joe Wilson's campaign for 2010 has received $700,000 in donations since his "Liar" outburst.

Remember "Hollywood Squares"?

My favorite is the flat line at the end.

Welcome Back to Washington, Democrats

Legislators, enjoy yourselves, your cushy jobs, and your great perks while you have them, because it's my guess you won't have them for long. 2010, Baby!



Paid for by the National Republican Congressional Committee, NRCC.org

Van Jones Fallout Will Continue, Says American Spectator

This is "Valerie Jerrett's Show," says the Washington Prowler at American Spectator.

"They don't seem to care about the political damage these people may inflict," says a former Obama Administration transition team member. Concerns were raised by the White House Counsel's Office over what were termed "inconsistencies" in Van Jones's questionnaire. So to put him into the office of Green Jobs Czar, the ObamaTeam evidently ignored their own lawyers' concerns about this radical, racist self-styled "Truther" communist.

Van Jones was interviewed for the czar position by Obama Senior Advisor Valerie Jerrett. Questions will rightly be asked about her role in hiring Van Jones and others who surround Obama, and here's a start: Was she also instrumental in hiring other people on the White House senior team--those who have huge budgets [Van Jones's budget was in the $60 billion range] and who will undoubtedly face closer scrutiny from the Right, appointees like Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd and Regulation Czar Cass Sunstein?

For the full article at American Spectator, go here.

Van Jones may be just the tip of the iceberg, and Valerie Jerrett herself is one to watch and figure out.

From 1991: Bush Speaks to School Children, Event "Carefully Staged for Political Benefit," says Washington Post

Will we ever be finished with the whining, self-serving hypocrisy and nasty name-calling of the Left? Probably not in my lifetime. I would be ashamed to be affiliated with the Democrat party. Ashamed.

In an opinion piece posted today by Byron York at Beltway Confidential, York reminds us that when President George H.W. Bush spoke to school children in October of 1991, the day after his speech, the Washington Post went ballistic, accusing the White House of using the speech as paid political advertising: "The White House turned a Northwest Washington classroom into a television studio and its students into props."

Criticism of Bush went even further than that (oh big, big surprise there!). Rep. William Ford (D, Michigan), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. Unfortunately for Ford, Byron York tells us, the GAO concluded that the Bush administration had not acted improperly.

Fast-forward eighteen years to President Obama speaking to school children today. People have expressed concern that Obama's speech to school children is more about himself and his own Leftist agenda; it's another self-referential speech, mentioning himself 56 times and the country only four. Predictably, the hysteria from the Left over any criticism of Obama is loud and long. We are told Obama's speech is a "terrific message," designed to challenge and inspire. However, the nasty, insane Right-wing lunatic fringe, "as expected," have hijacked the issue and have either "gone completely mad or lost all control of its racial bigotry. Either scenario," writes political analyst Andy Ostroy, " is equal parts frustrating, infuriating, shameful, and scary."

Again and again, over and over, criticizing anything our first African-American President does is termed racist and/or bigoted by those of the "Left-wing lunatic fringe." Who would have predicted that [do I really need the /sarc tag]?

Ostroy goes on to say that all of this criticism of Obama is nothing more than illogical, irrational, ignorance, fear, racism [his emphasis], and emotional vitriol [he gets all of that into two sentences--wow]. He says he "imagines" that critics simply don't want their conservative children getting the message that its OK for a young [young? Funny, nobody called me "young" when I was 48] black man to be so powerful. "These parents are perpetuating the biggest mind-fuck of all on their kids. . . ." Nice.

Ostroy isn't done yet: it's moronic, it's indoctrination, and people have "simply lost their minds." And a drumroll please: "The people stirring up all this school-speech trouble are no different than the misguided tea baggers [a nasty term that his mother ought to wash his mouth out for using--look it up in the urban dictionary], the town-hall goons, the birth-certificate 'truthers'. . . ." Obama is "black [again, his emphasis], people. Get used to it. Because whether you like it or not, he's gonna be running things for another seven-plus years."

Well, I guess when you have NOTHING to argue with, like facts, logic, or even reasoned opinion, then the only thing you've got, like Ostroy here, is name-calling.

Let me tell you something, Andy Ostroy, political analyst, something you'd better "get used to" pretty quick. People like me are sick and tired of being told we're bigots and racists and morons and nutjobs every time we turn around and every time we disagree with your "young, black, powerful" guy in the White House. It's wearing mighty thin; working the white guilt thing may have been a good strategy during the campaign for getting your guy elected, but it's not going to work so well for you anymore. We know what we are. We aren't bigots; we aren't racists; we aren't the lunatic fringe because we disagree with a socialist agenda. We are people who love our country and are concerned that we're being taken down a road that we don't want to go down.

And by the way, Andy, it's gonna be three-plus years, not seven, and even that will seem like forever.

Oh, and P.S. I know that's a picture of George W. Bush and the reference is to George H. W. Bush speaking to school children. I just liked that picture. "W" wasn't perfect, but he was a good, decent man, and I miss him as President.

File this one under "Impossibly Nutty News"

It seems that Libyan leader Omar Gaddafi really knows how to mend a personal slight. When Gaddafi's son Hannibal and wife were arrested last year in Switzerland for assaulting a hotel chambermaid, Gaddafi hit back by withdrawing five billion dollars from Swiss banks, closing Swiss businesses, and arresting Swiss nationals in Libya.

That would have been enough for most people, but evidently not for Gaddafi. The Libyan leader is expected to attend the U.N. General Assembly in September, where it is reported he will ask the United Nations to "abolish" Switzerland and share the land among its neighboring countries. "Switzerland is a world mafia and not a state," said Gaddafi. It is formed of an Italian community that should return to Italy, a German community that should return to Germany, and a French community that should return--sing it with us now--to France. This guy seems certifiable.

Which is just another reason to celebrate the fact that Gaddafi now not only has a seat on the U.N. Security Council but also will assume his year-long presidency of the U.N. General Assembly later this month. His trip in September to the United States, his first since seizing power in 1969, "marks a high point in Libya's effort to restore its standing on the international stage," reports the Washington Post. A recent "low point" came when Abedel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, the one who killed 259 people, including 189 Americans, was greeted by cheering crowds on his release from Scotland when he arrived in Libya's capital.

Gaddafi's request to pitch his air-conditioned Bedouin tent in Central Park while he is in New York has been denied. He's also been run out of New Jersey. You can't make this stuff up. Maybe the Lincoln bedroom is available that weekend.

Obama 'Green Jobs' Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Scandal Ignored Whitewashed by MSM

Van Jones, an Ivy League clone of Jeremiah Wright, issued a statement at midnight on Saturday night of the long Labor Day weekend: "I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today," Jones said in a statement dated Sept 5 released around midnight on Sept 6. "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me.They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide," he continued. "I have been inundated with calls -- from across the political spectrum -- urging me to 'stay and fight.' But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."

Big surprise that Van Jones uses the language of the victim--"a vicious smear campaign against me." What a whiner. Man up, Van! "Vicious smear campaign" my aunt's fanny. All people did was use your own words and actions against you. Good-bye and good riddance, you Schmuck.

For a compendium of links about the bus driving over Van Jones's head, go to Ed Driscoll at Pajamas Media.

Update: The AP "story" this Sunday morning behind the Van Jones resignation is a thing of beauty. Van Jones resigned because he was discovered calling Republicans a bad name. Van Jones resigned because he signed a silly petition that was "waived" in front of him that 1) he didn't know what it said; and 2) he didn't believe what it said. Feel free to pick either 1 or 2 or both, even though choosing both 1 and 2 is a contradiction--but not to worry, since evidently "logic" is just one of those anachronistic things they don't teach in school anymore anyway. So, being a Yale law grad and all, Van Jones, is that what they taught you at Yale--just to sign anything that's "waived" in front of you? What a tool.

The problem with whitewashing this story for the public who get their news from Perky Katie Couric or Time magazine or Jon Stewart [good grief!] is this: won’t they wonder why a guy was “forced” to resign because he called Republicans a bad word or signed a silly petition? Won’t they wonder why Obama is so weak that he couldn’t protect his own guy from those mean, white, racist people on the Right? Or maybe they are so in the tank for the guy or so incredibly unengaged or dumb that they honestly have no curiosity about the matter. So I guess I just answered my own question.

Just for fun, here's a response to a post on HotAir: If you take Obama and Jones at their word that he was run off by lies and distortions; and these lies and distortions are a week or two total in coming; and you factor the month after month that Sarah Palin had to endure, with her family, lies and distortions: doesn’t that make Jones a real SISSY and COWARD as well as what they screamed at Palin, a QUITTER!!

Update #2: How do you cover the resignation of a top official in the White House if you're Meet the Press, and no one on NBC news has previously mentioned the name Van Jones? "Blah, blah, van jones, blah, blah, the internet is an open sewer of untreated, unfiltered information, full of lies and smears, this is a cautionary tale of how everyone's a target because of bloggers in the basement, cell phones, and video cameras." That came from Thomas L. Friedman, "brilliant" clown columnist for the New York Times. Readers of the NYT were treated to their first print report on the Van Jones scandal in this morning's paper, after Van Jones resigned. The real "open sewer" comes from people like Thomas Friedman working in the profession formerly known as "journalism."



Update #3: Barack Hussein Obama's reaction on Sunday to the events surrounding Van Jones. Well, the reaction isn't directly by Obama, of course, since he's busy hiding under the desk at Camp David. But he sent his minions out to speak for him on the Sunday talk shows.

• David Axelrod, senior advisor to the President, was asked on the NBC Sunday morning program if Obama asked for Van Jones's resignation: "Absolutely not!"
  
• According to Robot Gibbs, White House press secretary, who was interviewed today on the ABC morning news show: "The President thanks Van Jones for his service over the past eight months."
  
  His service? Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard Blog opines: "I trust Gibbs will explain on Tuesday just what services Jones did as "green jobs czar." That he will make public his compensation, the groups with whom he met, and his travel expenses. I trust Gibbs will reveal whether Jones was honest about his past when he was being vetted, both to the FBI and to White House officials. And I trust Gibbs will explain what senior White House aide Valerie Jarrett knew when she recruited Jones, and whether she did so at the instruction of, or with the knowledge of, the president."

Politico writers Fred Barbash and Harry Siegel wonder about no explanation forthcoming from the White House: "There was no accompanying explanation on the unusual timing of the announcement, shortly after midnight on a Sunday morning before a holiday. Historically, the preferred White House time for potentially embarrassing announcements has been Friday evenings before holidays." [Charles Krauthammer reminds us that "midnight" is the time normally set for executions--just sayin'.]

Dana Perino, former press secretary to President George W. Bush, said she found it "curious" how Van Jones made it that far into the administration. "It'd be like the Bush White House having a former Klansman or Holocaust denier in the West Wing."

And then of course there's Michelle Obama's take on Van Jones. Does it matter what she says? Well, at the time she was speaking at a spring commencement address. So yeah, I think it matters, since she was holding up this America-hating racist communist Truther as an example to students of people who are doing interesting and innovative work: "And then there's Van Jones, who recently joined the Obama administration, a special adviser to the president on green jobs. Van started out as a grassroots organizer and became an advocate and a creator of ‘green collar’ jobs –- jobs that are not only good for the environment, but also provide good wages and career advancement for both skilled and unskilled workers,” she said.

A Guy Who Believes in the Second Amendment
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. --Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

This thing is making the rounds on the internet. I fell off my chair laughing--I only wish I could write that funny. Yet he makes a serious point.

Ad Was Posted to Craig's List Personals:

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last. Date: 07-27-09, 1:43 A M EST. I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on my girlfriend, threatening our lives and me. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment when I drew my pistol after you took my Jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 45 A CP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very Intimidating weapon when pointed at your head wasn't it? I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from bare footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as four other people's in the gas station on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful! I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!] I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target. The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).

In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you, but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life.

Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!

Thoughtfully yours, Alex

P.S. Remember this motto - An armed society makes for a more civil society!

The Very Real Voice of the Opposition

This woman is so real. This is the voice of America: she tells her legislator, "When I speak in opposition, I expect respect." For anyone who thinks that these town hall meetings are full of "faux outrage," or that American citizens are going to roll over and play dead while O'Bummer takes over and makes over this country into his very own fantasy vision of a fascist Bizarro-world [yes, fascist--we need to start labeling this stuff for what it really is--educate yourself if you don't know what the word means], well, listen to the very real passion of this woman, and think again. Oh, and by the way, this woman is from California, not from one of those "whack-job" states in the middle of the country.



ObamaTeam made the biggest mistake ever by dismissing the citizens of this country and their outrage about this health care "reform." She makes an excellent point--that legislators have been trying for years to reform health care, without success, and now all of a sudden it's a "crisis" that has to be shoved down our collective throats. No thank you. Reform, yes; this crap sandwich "health reform" bill, no thank you.

And for the Left to say that people on the Right, if they're not for Obama's "reform," then therefore they don't want to improve the health care delivery in this country--it's simply intellectually lazy and dishonest. I have heard that "argument" so often from people on the Left, and I AM SICK OF HEARING IT. I am not a demonic nutjob because I don't want this bill. I don't "hate my neighbor" because I don't want this bill. I've read the 1300 pages of H.R. Bill 3200 and I think it's absolutely the most sickening, frightening government power grab I've ever encountered. Yet people on the Left consistently demonize me and people like me as wanting NOTHING because I speak out against Obamacrap. They say, straight out, that because I won't roll over and accept ObamaCare, then I must want people to "die in the streets" without health care. For the love of God, people are not dying in the streets. "Nothing" or "ObamaCare" is a false choice, a logical fallacy. Well, here's a choice for you: You who keep screaming that nonsense at me and people like me either know that it's false and you don't care and do it anyway, or you're ignorant and uninformed--pick one.

For the Obama administration, this isn't about health care, it's about grabbing all the power he can get. Wake up. And God bless this woman for speaking up.

Let's Bump It Up A Little

Barack Hussein Obama, our President, sent his White House press secretary, Robot Gibbs, out on Friday morning to tell the White House Press Corps that Van Jones continues to work for the White House. Or, more accurately, Van Jones continues to work for Barack Obama.

I'm not normally a big fan of Michael Savage, but he has said some things on this video that people need to hear--and the most amazing thing, in my mind, is that he said these things back in March of this year. Obviously, WE WEREN'T LISTENING. Are we listening now? We'd better be.

Content warning: If you are easily offended, then for cripes sake, don't click on the video, because Michael Savage gets pretty wound up here, and he's not a "nice guy" like Glenn Beck. However, anyone who hasn't heard about Van Jones because they get all their news from Time magazine, or from the perky Katie Couric, or God help you, from Jon Stewart and "Entertainment News," then I absolutely suggest that it's time--it's beyond time, but at least it's not too late yet--to put your brain in gear, click on the video, and take a look at some of this stuff.

Questions Someone Needs to Ask about Our Man Van

Questions from a former White House aide, Jeffrey Lord at American Spectator, who knows how the game is played. He said that no one visits the White House, let alone works there, without being vetted by the Secret Service. So if VanJones was given a pass on his background (for his prison record, for his self-avowed communism, for his 9/11 Trutherism), then he was given a pass by someone at a very high level.

Here's what he says we ought to be asking about VanJones:

• Who on the White House staff cleared Van Jones?
• What was that person's connection to Van Jones or Mr. Jones's political sponsor?
• Who, exactly, was Mr. Jones' sponsor for this job? How much money did he/she contribute to the Obama campaign?
• Did the Secret Service notify anyone on the White House staff -- or the President or First Lady or Vice President Biden -- that Mr. Jones had an arrest record on file with police in two cities?
• Did the Secret Service protest any of this, objecting to Mr. Jones' clearance?
• If the Secret Service did object, who overruled them? The President? The Chief of Staff? Someone else? [If they didn't object, what the hell is going on?--that's my question.]
• If the answer to this last question is yes, and the Secret Service was overruled by the President or someone else, why did this happen?

Let's ask the questions and then also demand answers from the most transparent administration evah.

Van Jones a "Truther" Communist?

This is Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar for ObamaTeam, a guy who is making a six-figure salary paid for by our tax dollars. He's a self-avowed communist and a signer of something called the "911 Truth Statement" in 2004 that, among other things, accused the Bush administration of having prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks and stated that Bush "consciously failed" to act. So Van Jones was one of the signatories of a petition and major push for investigation into the collaboration of the Bush administration with the perpetrators of the worst massacre of Americans ever committed on American soil.

Charles Krauthammer, a Pulitzer-prize-winning columnist, Fox News commentator, and psychiatrist, says this: Van Jones is beyond extremism and radicalism. His views are "psychotic paranoia." [Psychiatrists don't throw terms like that around willy-nilly like lay people do, so I paid attention when he said that.] Continues Krauthammer, "It’s a malignant kind of politics, and you’ve got to ask yourself, in the White House, if you didn’t know he’s a Truther, then you’ve got to ask him to politely resign. And if you did, is that acceptable in the government of the United States?"

One of the more cynical bloggers on the right is convinced that, instead of a breakdown in the ObamaTeam vetting process, Van Jones's hiring can best be explained as a goof by Obama to see just how much crap the media will let him get away with.  “Hey Rahm — bet you 20 bucks I can get a Truther communist appointed to an environmental oversight position.”

Question of the day: What did the White House know about Van Jones’s Trutherism and when did they know it? Charles Krauthammer says that the question of Jones's communism isn't all that troubling, seeing communism in 2009 as something of a "pathetic anachronism." But Krauthammer sees the revelation about the Green Jobs Czar Jones being a Truther as “devastating.”

Does Barack Obama believe that it’s acceptable to have paranoid conspiracists in high-level appointments, or was the White House simply too incompetent to properly research Jones in the vetting process? Because it comes down to those two options, and regardless of what we think of Jones, the blame for him being in the White House falls squarely on Obama.

Van Jones has apparently been part of the Truther Squad since its inception. In January of 2002, Jones took part in a march on Senator Dianne Feinstein's San Francisco office to "Demand Congressional Inquiry of 9/11." This is part of a manifesto that the group put out that day:

• The Bush administration has institutionalized racial profiling and is secretly rounding up thousands of Arab Americans and other people of Middle Eastern background.
• At the same time, the Bush administration is giving billions to the military, offering huge bailouts and tax incentives to corporations and the wealthy, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of laid off workers, and cutting social services.
• The Bush administration is clearly more interested in controlling the oil resources of Central Asia than in "ridding the world of terrorism or terrorists" which it has funded, trained, and used for decades through the C.I.A.

The group then goes on to "demand answers" to the following questions [there were many others; I chose only a few]:

• Who created, trained and funded the Al Qaeda Network?
• What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?
• Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"? [Note the "scare quotes."]
• Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack. . .?
• If the US is serious about ridding the world of terrorism, why do we continue to fund and train terrorists?
• Why intimidate professors from speaking out against this war? [Really? Are you kidding?]

No one will buy the idea that Obama is a moderate while he’s employing a man who thinks that George Bush murdered 3,000 people so he could grab oil and poppies for heroine from Central Asia. The man who knowingly employs a nutcase as one of his close advisers will himself look more like a nutcase than a moderate.

Update: So far, the ObamaTeam isn't backing away from Van Jones. Soon, the issue will no longer be "Van Jones" ["scare quotes" intentional]. The issue will be who O'Bummer willingly and knowlingly surrounds himself with. He was given a pass during the 2008 campaign because, after all, we were doing something historic, we were electing the first black president. Well, that pass has apparently expired--not with the mainstream media, who continue to cover for ObamaTeam, but with many, many "regular citizens." Good luck with continuing down that road, Barry--the road of "I never heard him say that" or "He must not have been vetted properly." This appointment of a radical racist nutjob is on you, Champ.

By the way, do you ever remembering seeing George W Bush come off of the helicopter and wave to the crowd with such a pissy expression? Serious sometimes, yes, but pissy like this, no. Something tells me O'Bummer isn't having much fun these days, despite his two recent vacations. I'd like to think I could smile a little better than this if I'd just spent $50,000 for the week to rent a compound on Martha's Vineyard. Boo-freakin'-hoo, Obama. I guess being a grown-up for the first time in your life really sucks.

LA Burning

"This is a story of glazed-eyed government incompetence"--big, big, big, big, BIG surprise. It's a story of unintended bad consequences that occur with competing special interest groups. I can hardly wait to see what kinds of unintended consequence disasters we will have when government gets their hands on control over the health care of 300 million people.

This is from an AP story out of Los Angeles.

Federal authorities failed to follow through on plans earlier this year to burn away highly flammable brush in a forest on the edge of Los Angeles to avoid the very kind of wildfire now raging there... Months before the huge blaze erupted, the U.S. Forest Service obtained permits to burn away the undergrowth and brush on more than 1,700 acres of the Angeles National Forest. But just 193 acres had been cleared by the time the fire broke out, Forest Service resource officer Steve Bear said.

The agency defended its efforts, saying weather, wind and environmental rules tightly limit how often these "prescribed burns" can be conducted... Some critics suggested that protests from environmentalists over prescribed burns contributed to the disaster, which came after the brush was allowed to build up for as much as 40 years. "This brush was ready to explode," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich... "The environmentalists have gone to the extreme to prevent controlled burns, and as a result we have this catastrophe today."...

 The blaze has destroyed more than five dozen homes, killed two firefighters and forced thousands of people to flee... Biologist Ileene Anderson with the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization, said burn permits should be difficult to get because of the potential damage to air quality. Clearing chaparral by hand or machine must be closely scrutinized because it can hurt native species.

"Potential damage to air quality?" Are these people just freakin' nuts, or what? And evidently concern over "hurting native species" is much, much more important than people's lives. They don't call it La-La Land for nothin'. Hey, Biologist Ileeeene Anderson: How's your air quality this week? People like that should be made accountable for their stupidity.

Acres that were to be cleared: 1,748.
Acres actually cleared: 193.
Acres burned (so far, and experts say it may burn for another "two weeks"): 105,000 acres of underbrush, scrub oak, and mature trees.

**Thursday update: 150,000 acres burned and "38%" contained--however the heck they figure that out. Annother spokesman said that if this is a marathon, then "today we are at mile six." Those numbers don't match up. Either somebody can't do math or they don't know the number of miles in a marathon.

Halo, Obama

As much as I don't like the guy, I'll admit, Obama was a great campaigner. It's just as a leader that he pretty much sucks. Leading from behind just doesn't work. With his poll numbers dropping out from under him, I guess you really can't blame the guy for going back to what he does best. This "official White House" photo, found on the White House website, wasn't taken on the campaign--it was taken on August 14, 2009.

With his positive poll numbers now in the forties, Obama is tied with Clinton for the most precipitous drop ever for a modern president. True, Clinton was reelected for a second term; however, Clinton's first term created the conditions that allowed the GOP to take over the House of Representatives in 1994, for the first time in more than half a century. Also, the way I remember it, Clinton was just, well, more likeable than this guy.

Pictures like these to the contrary, for an increasing number of the American electorate, the glow seems to be off Obama's halo.

All the President's Czars

Obama is subverting the Constitution by appointing "czars" who, unlike Cabinet positions, require no Senate confirmation and who report only to Obama, essentially creating a parallel or "shadow" goverment and appointing people who could never pass Senate oversight, not even in a Democrat-controlled Senate. As Michelle Malkin writes, it's not just the number of these czars that has gotten people's attention, it's issues such as superfluousness, conflicts of interest, criminal history, and the compromised quality of so many of them.

Putting the quality of appointments aside for a minute, the sheer number is disturbing enough. In other administrations, as many as five "czars" have been appointed by a president; most have had one or two. So far, Obama has appointed thirty-four. Just listing them is enough to scare anyone who believes in constitutional and representative government: Afghanistan czar, AIDS czar, border czar, car czar, climate czar, copyright czar, cyberspace czar, drug czar, economic czar, education czar, energy czar, executive pay czar, faith-based czar, Great Lakes czar, green jobs czar, Guantanamo closure czar, health reform czar, infotech czar, intelligence czar, Iran czar, Middle East peace czar, non-proliferation czar, Persian Gulf/Southeast Asia czar, regulatory czar, science czar, stimulus accountability czar, Sudan czar, TARP czar, terrorism czar, urban czar, war czar, and WMD and terrorism czar.

Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern about Obama's appointments. In February, Senator Robert Byrd (D, West Virginia), known as the "Constitutional Conscience of the Senate," sent a letter to Obama, expressing his concern about the czar power grab by the executive branch: “As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountablefor their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege." Whatever happened to Obama's pledge to have the most transparent administration, evah?

One House Representative, Rep. Jack Kingston (R, Georgia) is trying to do something by sponsoring a bill known as the Czar Accountability and  Reform Act, H.R. 3226, which would "bar the use of appropriated funds to pay either the expenses or salaries of members of task forces, councils, or similar offices established by the president and headed by a person appointed inappropriately to such a post without Senate advice and consent." Of course, Queen Pelosi will make sure that the bill never sees the light of day--but for the sake of getting the failed attempt on record, Kingston's bill is notable. "I serve on the Appropriations Committee," said Kingston, "which is responsible for overseeing every dollar spent by our government, but I’ve yet to see a single one of Obama’s czars.”

So far these Obama appointments have received little notice in the media, which in itself is an indication that there's something nefarious going on here. Glenn Beck, bless his pointy tinfoil-hat head, is doing the best work of anyone, bringing attention to some of these people--self-avowed communist Van Jones, the "Green Jobs" czar, being one of the worst. Over the days and weeks I plan to post Czar profiles here in an attempt to educate myself about our new shadow government. It was Obama, after all, who said this: to see what he believes in, look at the people he associates with and surrounds himself with. We certainly need to take him at his word.

When the Left mocks people on the Right for saying, "We want our government back," the ObamaCzar scheme of slipping these people in through the back door, with no oversight from anyone but The One, is a prime example of what we are fighting against.

Update: Sunday, September 7, 2009. Van Jones resigns as Green Jobs Czar. That's 1 down, 36 to go.

Not Only Insipid But Also Creepy

The money line comes at the end: "I pledge to be a servant to our President." You have to love the "almost 2-star" rating of this video.



These Hollywood people are hypocrites-extraordinaire. At best, the entire clip is inane: one guy  pledging to get a better car to save the planet; one of them pledges to smile more or meet her neighbors.* Wow. Gee, they're even going to "start" to use less bottled water. Another must be more of a Type-A personality than the others--she pledges to rid the world of Alzheimer's. Honestly, I don't know how these people said this stuff with straight faces--I guess that's why they needed actors to say the lines.

Demi Moore isn't especially known for her comedy roles, but in this clip she actually made me laugh out loud. She pledges "to free one million people from slavery in the next five years." Really? And then not 60 seconds later, "I pledge to be a servant to our President." And she says it with such heartfelt feeling. Good Lord, Demi. Well, OK, let's help you figure out how you could be a servant to your President. I've got it--how about  getting rid of one of your four or five homes? That might help the planet even more than "starting" to use less bottled water.

*Oops. It was reported that shortly after making this Pledge Video, Demi Moore's husband, actor Ashton Kutcher, broke his "I'll smile more" pledge by verbally assaulting his neighbor. Actually, Ashton shot a video of this "event" and posted it on YouTube. He took it down when every blogger, right and left, laughed at his enormous ignorance.

They ask at the end: "What's your pledge. Surely you have a pledge." You betcha, I have several.

• I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which It Stands.
• I pledge to work to save our country from morons like these who in their ignorance are turning this country into a fascist state.
• I pledge to flush--EVERY time.
• I pledge to be even more discriminating with my movie-going dollars (not that Demi Moore has had any movie roles lately).
• I pledge not to watch any part of that idiot video ever again.
• I pledge to insist that everyone "on my staff" double-bag all my groceries in plastic bags (Does anyone really think that any of these people do their own grocery shopping?).
• I pledge not to let Hollywood hypocrites like these determine the morals and values of my country.
• I pledge to burn a few tires in a vacant lot just for my own amusement.
• I pledge to continue increasing my own and my family's involvement in our Second Amendment rights.
• I pledge to attend the Quincy, Illinois 9-12 Tea Party Tax Rebellion and take along my video camera. Surely some of those people attending would like to be part of their own "I Pledge" video.
• I pledge to work to rid the House and Senate of its Democrat majority by 2010.
• I pledge to serve my country and work to rid the country of Barack Hussein Obama and his Team in 2012.

Ouch!
Boo-hoo. Those polls really suck when they're not going you're way, hey O'Bummer? Honestly, I thought Barry's polls would improve during his vacation when he got out of the limelight--when he was no longer in our face every freakin' day. Evidently not. This must be seriously bumming out Axelrod and the Head Ballerina, Rahm Emmanuel.

Seriously, though, the Right can't get complacent. We need to continue to hold the Obamanation's feet to the fire. The polls numbers look great for August, but you can bet that ObamaTeam will be back with another comeback strategy. Stay awake. Stay on guard.