Nanny states breed rebellion...a flaw inherit in the system, perhaps.
Overheard in New York:
Asian mother, walking past smoker: Get your cigarette away from my baby!
Smoker: Get your baby away from my cigarette!
Old woman: Yeah! Fuck you, lady!
--W 96th St & Broadway
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
WikiLeaks Under Seige, And A Revolution Unexpected
..as of this posting, the WikiLeaks site is down, apparently from a "Denial of Service"-style attack.
Apparently, Wikileaks has been jumping on and off Amazon's servers-for-rent, their cloud-type system being significantly harder to bring down.
Still, I find it interesting that while governments dither in the face of Julian Assange's pathological urge to destroy the West, and America in particular, ordinary citizens are fighting back with every tool at their disposal (true, hackers may not be "ordinary citizens", and true, this may be a government-sponsored attack, but the sporadic and not always entirely effective nature of the "counterattack" on Wikileaks leads me to believe it is "people-sourced" rather than government-directed).
A strange dynamic is at play in the world today. Leaders beat their chests and issue proclamations from Tehran to Washington, yet the truth comes out and mocks them, almost immediately, via Twitter and YouTube. Attackers from foreign nations are just as likely to be brought down by concerned citizens (think the Christmas bomber of 2009) as they are from government-approved special/armed forces. The Republican party is co-opted by the Tea Party, which proceeds to run the Democratic party out of town on a rail. Politicians wail about "climate change", and are roundly ignored by the citizenry, save to vote them out of office. And the mainstream corporate media, which had always vowed to "televise the revolution", has been sidelined and replaced by citizen journalists, and their blogs...
Have the people of the West given up on their governments? Have we grown so frustrated by their elitism, their out-of-touchiness, their inability to get anything done, that we have decided just to ignore them and get it (whatever it is) done by ourselves? Has Western civilization reached a point where the only government we need, the only one we want, is one that will maintain the roads and protect the borders? Are we in the midst of a revolution we never expected or planned for, one in which our governments will be overthrown by...sheer indifference?
And, if so...at what point to we stop paying taxes for services no longer rendered?
Apparently, Wikileaks has been jumping on and off Amazon's servers-for-rent, their cloud-type system being significantly harder to bring down.
Still, I find it interesting that while governments dither in the face of Julian Assange's pathological urge to destroy the West, and America in particular, ordinary citizens are fighting back with every tool at their disposal (true, hackers may not be "ordinary citizens", and true, this may be a government-sponsored attack, but the sporadic and not always entirely effective nature of the "counterattack" on Wikileaks leads me to believe it is "people-sourced" rather than government-directed).
A strange dynamic is at play in the world today. Leaders beat their chests and issue proclamations from Tehran to Washington, yet the truth comes out and mocks them, almost immediately, via Twitter and YouTube. Attackers from foreign nations are just as likely to be brought down by concerned citizens (think the Christmas bomber of 2009) as they are from government-approved special/armed forces. The Republican party is co-opted by the Tea Party, which proceeds to run the Democratic party out of town on a rail. Politicians wail about "climate change", and are roundly ignored by the citizenry, save to vote them out of office. And the mainstream corporate media, which had always vowed to "televise the revolution", has been sidelined and replaced by citizen journalists, and their blogs...
Have the people of the West given up on their governments? Have we grown so frustrated by their elitism, their out-of-touchiness, their inability to get anything done, that we have decided just to ignore them and get it (whatever it is) done by ourselves? Has Western civilization reached a point where the only government we need, the only one we want, is one that will maintain the roads and protect the borders? Are we in the midst of a revolution we never expected or planned for, one in which our governments will be overthrown by...sheer indifference?
And, if so...at what point to we stop paying taxes for services no longer rendered?
Liberals Shriek At Obama's "Pay Freeze", Demand Raises Instead
A new definition of chutzpah:
Representatives of three liberal advocacy groups on Monday blasted President Obama’s proposed two-year freeze on federal civilian worker pay.
John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, Tamara Draut of Demos and Greg Anrig of The Century Foundation said it is a mistake to freeze pay until the economic recovery from the recent recession has taken hold more firmly.
“We think that is a terrible idea. We should be raising wages,” Irons said in a press call. “It is unclear why the president would want to do this.”
“It reinforces the concern we have that the focus has shifted from creating jobs to deficit reduction. It is far too soon to be doing that. We need to be focusing on ways to lower 9.6 percent unemployment,” Anrig said.
Well, how about lowering taxes on businesses, Mr. Anrig? Ah, no, sorry - Anrig's plan (in the linked article) for American financial sovereignty is a stew of 1/3 spending cuts (military?), 1/3 tax increases, and 1/3rd the elimination of tax breaks. Or, in other words, 2/3rds of his plan to pay federal workers more while lowering the deficit involves hiking taxes on people other than federal workers.
And why is it OK to ask struggling Americans, who are having to stretch their dollars more and more and each paycheck, to fork over even more of their money so that federal employees can get raises? Alas, the Irons/Draut/Anrig triumvirate has no reasonable answer for that, just as they have no logical way to explain how massive tax increases would lower unemployment.
We can boil the liberal argument in this case down to three words: "GIMME GIMME GIMME"!
Sorry, ladies, it ain't gonna fly any more. You had two years of Hope, now here comes Change. And you don't have to believe in it to see that it is barrelling down the tracks, and aimed dead-center at your public extortion racket.
Maybe they do. Thus the panic, the shrieking, the loss of rationality. If we are to judge a man - or a union - by how they face adversity, it appears as if liberals, and federal employees, will come out of this crisis with less respect than they had going in.
Which is saying a lot.
More liberal angst at TPM ( "We risk not hiring good people, we risk not giving a raise to people who deserve a raise" - yes, it's a risk in a risk-based economy, it's called "capitalism") and at the Washington Monthly ( "To grow the economy, we need workers to have more money in their pockets, not less. A pay freeze is an anti-stimulus." OK, I agree. So you are against all tax hikes, rate increases, and new revenue-enhancing fees as well, right? Right? Hello?)
Representatives of three liberal advocacy groups on Monday blasted President Obama’s proposed two-year freeze on federal civilian worker pay.
John Irons of the Economic Policy Institute, Tamara Draut of Demos and Greg Anrig of The Century Foundation said it is a mistake to freeze pay until the economic recovery from the recent recession has taken hold more firmly.
“We think that is a terrible idea. We should be raising wages,” Irons said in a press call. “It is unclear why the president would want to do this.”
“It reinforces the concern we have that the focus has shifted from creating jobs to deficit reduction. It is far too soon to be doing that. We need to be focusing on ways to lower 9.6 percent unemployment,” Anrig said.
Well, how about lowering taxes on businesses, Mr. Anrig? Ah, no, sorry - Anrig's plan (in the linked article) for American financial sovereignty is a stew of 1/3 spending cuts (military?), 1/3 tax increases, and 1/3rd the elimination of tax breaks. Or, in other words, 2/3rds of his plan to pay federal workers more while lowering the deficit involves hiking taxes on people other than federal workers.
And why is it OK to ask struggling Americans, who are having to stretch their dollars more and more and each paycheck, to fork over even more of their money so that federal employees can get raises? Alas, the Irons/Draut/Anrig triumvirate has no reasonable answer for that, just as they have no logical way to explain how massive tax increases would lower unemployment.
We can boil the liberal argument in this case down to three words: "GIMME GIMME GIMME"!
Sorry, ladies, it ain't gonna fly any more. You had two years of Hope, now here comes Change. And you don't have to believe in it to see that it is barrelling down the tracks, and aimed dead-center at your public extortion racket.
Maybe they do. Thus the panic, the shrieking, the loss of rationality. If we are to judge a man - or a union - by how they face adversity, it appears as if liberals, and federal employees, will come out of this crisis with less respect than they had going in.
Which is saying a lot.
More liberal angst at TPM ( "We risk not hiring good people, we risk not giving a raise to people who deserve a raise" - yes, it's a risk in a risk-based economy, it's called "capitalism") and at the Washington Monthly ( "To grow the economy, we need workers to have more money in their pockets, not less. A pay freeze is an anti-stimulus." OK, I agree. So you are against all tax hikes, rate increases, and new revenue-enhancing fees as well, right? Right? Hello?)
Classic...
Monday, November 29, 2010
WikiLeaks: The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good
...with the Good being us, the American people, and the Perfect being one Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks. Assange explains below why the United States is the most recent (and perhaps consistent) target of WikiLeak document dumps:
This document release reveals the contradictions between the U.S.’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors — and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.
Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington — the country’s first president — could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today’s document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the U.S. government has been warning governments — even the most corrupt — around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.
And what have those exposures been? That Libya's Qaddafi likes busty Russian chicks, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi likes wild parties, most of the world is scared shitless of an Iranian nuke, and that Barack Obama's foreign policy has been one big epic fail. Big deal. Tell me something I don't know...
What pisses me off is the scolding we are getting from WikiLeaks for not living up to George Washington's cherry tree fable. Julian Assange is apparently willing to destroy the national security of the United States and weaken its diplomatic powers because somewhere, a diplomat is snarking off about the leader of France. Are you kidding me?
More likely, of course, is this pathetic excuse for a massive document dump is a cover for Assange's deep-seated hatred of the United States. Most of his "successes" noted on the WikiLeaks "about" pages are of the US/UK/Israel "gotcha" type that are common to most so-called "human rights groups". No uncovering of North Korean concentration camps, Chinese secret prisons, Iranian torture chambers, Taliban rapists, Hamas killing floors....just reams and reams of documents showing the failings of the West. And how does Assange justify this war against the nation that has done more to promote freedom, prosperity, and peace than any other in the history of civilization? Why, for blaming us to not living up to the legend of George Washington...
We are good, but we are not perfect, so we must be punished. However, the evil, never claiming to be anything but, are let off scott-free, because there is little hypocrisy to be found in self-confessed killer's personal notes. Or maybe because it is just a little scarier to publish information from a regime that could retaliate by poisoning you with Uranium 231. Or maybe these regimes are perfectly evil, and thus are fit to be left alone, in the eyes of Julian Assange.
Whatever. But should he show his face in the United States, let's make sure he never tells a lie. Of any sort. Or else we should execute some 18th century justice on the man who uses 18th century myths to rationalize his 21st century attacks on the people of the United States...
This document release reveals the contradictions between the U.S.’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors — and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.
Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington — the country’s first president — could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today’s document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the U.S. government has been warning governments — even the most corrupt — around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.
And what have those exposures been? That Libya's Qaddafi likes busty Russian chicks, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi likes wild parties, most of the world is scared shitless of an Iranian nuke, and that Barack Obama's foreign policy has been one big epic fail. Big deal. Tell me something I don't know...
What pisses me off is the scolding we are getting from WikiLeaks for not living up to George Washington's cherry tree fable. Julian Assange is apparently willing to destroy the national security of the United States and weaken its diplomatic powers because somewhere, a diplomat is snarking off about the leader of France. Are you kidding me?
More likely, of course, is this pathetic excuse for a massive document dump is a cover for Assange's deep-seated hatred of the United States. Most of his "successes" noted on the WikiLeaks "about" pages are of the US/UK/Israel "gotcha" type that are common to most so-called "human rights groups". No uncovering of North Korean concentration camps, Chinese secret prisons, Iranian torture chambers, Taliban rapists, Hamas killing floors....just reams and reams of documents showing the failings of the West. And how does Assange justify this war against the nation that has done more to promote freedom, prosperity, and peace than any other in the history of civilization? Why, for blaming us to not living up to the legend of George Washington...
We are good, but we are not perfect, so we must be punished. However, the evil, never claiming to be anything but, are let off scott-free, because there is little hypocrisy to be found in self-confessed killer's personal notes. Or maybe because it is just a little scarier to publish information from a regime that could retaliate by poisoning you with Uranium 231. Or maybe these regimes are perfectly evil, and thus are fit to be left alone, in the eyes of Julian Assange.
Whatever. But should he show his face in the United States, let's make sure he never tells a lie. Of any sort. Or else we should execute some 18th century justice on the man who uses 18th century myths to rationalize his 21st century attacks on the people of the United States...
WikiLeaks: It's The Arab Lobby That's Been Clamoring For A Strike On Iran!
And just when you thought you had the world figured out, that Israel was basically the root of all evil in the Middle East and throughout the world, with a relentless lobbying organziation in America designed to force the United States to fight wars on their behalf, we find out...that exactly the opposite is true:
Leaders of oil-rich Arabian Peninsula monarchies who are publicly reluctant to criticize Iran have been beseeching the United States in private to attack the Islamic Republic and destroy its nuclear facilities, according to a series of classified diplomatic cables released by the WikiLeaks website.
The cables show that both Saudi King Abdullah and King Hamed ibn Isa Khalifa of Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. 5th Fleet, are among the Arab leaders who have lobbied the United States to strike Iran. According to one dispatch, a Saudi official reminded Americans that the king had repeatedly asked the U.S. to "cut off the head of the snake" before it was too late...
The documents illustrate how frightened the Arab world is of Iran's rising ambitions and its nuclear program — and how much Iran has become the center of attention in capitals around the world...
Although Persian Gulf leaders recognize that the options for dealing with Iran are limited, the dispatches indicate that they repeatedly have urged U.S. military action, fearing that allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb would shift the balance of power decisively in the region.
Guess the Arabs figure if anyone in the region is to have nukes, it might as well be the Israelis, whose bizarre desire to limit casualties on the other side in their war to survive has protected most of the Middle East from annexation/extinction. And it looks as if Obama has blown another opportunity to use "smart diplomacy"; certainly with the amount of panic being reported in the Arab capitals some sort of deal could have been reached for Israel to do the Iranian job itself (with some US assistance) in return for certain concessions from the Arab leadership. No, instead, Obama has aligned himself with Hamas and Fatah, and has been scolding the Jews for building homes in their capital while the rest of the region anxiously looks over the horizon for the oncoming mushroom cloud....
One question does remain, however: Will we soon hear complaints of an "Arab lobby" dragging the US to war? Will CAIR be demonized the way AIPAC is? Will scholars such as Harvard's famed anti-Semties John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt now spend some of their time investigating the effects of Arab money on our foreign policy? Will Glen Greenwald, famous for accusing Americans Jews of dual loyalty and treason, now level the same accusations against Arab citizens and lawmakers?
I'm not counting on it. The attacks on Israel will continue even without evidence, and most of the names/players above will be exposed as anti-Semites, rather than the anti-Zionists or "progressive thinkers" they claim to be. Because for the Left, it was always about the Jews, and much less about Israel, a nation so liberal it could oft put California to shame.
Obama won't change direction, either. 20 years of Sundays at an anti-Semetic church will do that; facts won't soon chase the words of his beloved Reverend Wright out of his ears anytime soon. He'll continue to squeeze Israel for concessions while the rest of the region realizes the Jews are their last hope for survival. Ironic, and fitting.
So too is this, from Josh Block:
One of the most interesting overall themes is the restraint seen to typify the Israelis on Iran, in contrast to the typical Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Walt/Mearsheimer, Glenn Greenwald-Neo-progresive, netroots claims Israel is trying to prod us to fight and bomb Iran for them.
In the end, one of the most obvious take-aways from these WikiLeaks documents is devastating to the whole Left/Realist narrative about Israeli manipulation. The Israelis come off as cool customers, while the Arabs are the ones freaking out, justifiably many would argue, and literally demanding the U.S. bomb the Iranian nuclear program.
Leaders of oil-rich Arabian Peninsula monarchies who are publicly reluctant to criticize Iran have been beseeching the United States in private to attack the Islamic Republic and destroy its nuclear facilities, according to a series of classified diplomatic cables released by the WikiLeaks website.
The cables show that both Saudi King Abdullah and King Hamed ibn Isa Khalifa of Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. 5th Fleet, are among the Arab leaders who have lobbied the United States to strike Iran. According to one dispatch, a Saudi official reminded Americans that the king had repeatedly asked the U.S. to "cut off the head of the snake" before it was too late...
The documents illustrate how frightened the Arab world is of Iran's rising ambitions and its nuclear program — and how much Iran has become the center of attention in capitals around the world...
Although Persian Gulf leaders recognize that the options for dealing with Iran are limited, the dispatches indicate that they repeatedly have urged U.S. military action, fearing that allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb would shift the balance of power decisively in the region.
Guess the Arabs figure if anyone in the region is to have nukes, it might as well be the Israelis, whose bizarre desire to limit casualties on the other side in their war to survive has protected most of the Middle East from annexation/extinction. And it looks as if Obama has blown another opportunity to use "smart diplomacy"; certainly with the amount of panic being reported in the Arab capitals some sort of deal could have been reached for Israel to do the Iranian job itself (with some US assistance) in return for certain concessions from the Arab leadership. No, instead, Obama has aligned himself with Hamas and Fatah, and has been scolding the Jews for building homes in their capital while the rest of the region anxiously looks over the horizon for the oncoming mushroom cloud....
One question does remain, however: Will we soon hear complaints of an "Arab lobby" dragging the US to war? Will CAIR be demonized the way AIPAC is? Will scholars such as Harvard's famed anti-Semties John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt now spend some of their time investigating the effects of Arab money on our foreign policy? Will Glen Greenwald, famous for accusing Americans Jews of dual loyalty and treason, now level the same accusations against Arab citizens and lawmakers?
I'm not counting on it. The attacks on Israel will continue even without evidence, and most of the names/players above will be exposed as anti-Semites, rather than the anti-Zionists or "progressive thinkers" they claim to be. Because for the Left, it was always about the Jews, and much less about Israel, a nation so liberal it could oft put California to shame.
Obama won't change direction, either. 20 years of Sundays at an anti-Semetic church will do that; facts won't soon chase the words of his beloved Reverend Wright out of his ears anytime soon. He'll continue to squeeze Israel for concessions while the rest of the region realizes the Jews are their last hope for survival. Ironic, and fitting.
So too is this, from Josh Block:
One of the most interesting overall themes is the restraint seen to typify the Israelis on Iran, in contrast to the typical Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Walt/Mearsheimer, Glenn Greenwald-Neo-progresive, netroots claims Israel is trying to prod us to fight and bomb Iran for them.
In the end, one of the most obvious take-aways from these WikiLeaks documents is devastating to the whole Left/Realist narrative about Israeli manipulation. The Israelis come off as cool customers, while the Arabs are the ones freaking out, justifiably many would argue, and literally demanding the U.S. bomb the Iranian nuclear program.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
On Calling Bristol Palin "A Hooker": The Gang-Rape Continues...
I didn't realize Joy Behar had her own TV show, and I didn't realize some show biz folks still believe that the perpetually painfully unfunny wannnabe comediaenne Sandra Bernhard is a worthwhile guest on such shows. Well, call me an uncultered Philistine, I suppose, because I don't believe this is funny, informative, or contributes to the grand discussion in any way...via Cubachi, and Newsbusters:
JOY BEHAR, HOST: After weeks of speculation that the low-scoring Bristol Palin could actually take the "Dancing With The Stars`" win, the nation breathed the sigh of relief last night as Jennifer Grey was crowned the champion (ph). With me now to talk about this and other stories in the news are Sandra Bernhard
comedian and singer, Rebecca Dana, senior correspondent for the Daily Beast...
BEHAR: So, Sandra, were you ready to shoot the TV last night?
SANDRA BERNHARD, COMEDIAN: I twittered for the entire two hours. My eyeballs were falling out of my head. I said, first of all, I said, Cander and Ebb would not allow this.
(LAUGHTER)
BERNHARD: You cannot be part of the Palin legacy and dance to Cander and Ebb in a cage.
BEHAR: Yes.
BERNHARD: I mean, Bob Fosse, he turned over in his grave.
BEHAR: What`s her name, Bristol on today`s "View" said something like --
BERNHARD: How did she do it? How did she get to New York to do the "View"?
BEHAR: I don`t know.
REBECCA DANA, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY BEAST: They have their own plane, these people.
BERNHARD: She`s such a hooker. She got on a flight after losing last night.
BEHAR: How did they deal with ABC? I think that the losers come on the "View" and they dance. She said that her mother likes her being in the cage.
BERNHARD: She`s supposed to be the spokesperson for abstinence and yet wears candies shoes which like you say -- I`m wearing these (INAUDIBLE). I`m thrown (ph) out of a car at full speed. You know what I mean? These are like total like hooker shoes. By all means, have candies underwrite abstinence.
BEHAR: You know, there`s a backlash on me because a lot of people when I`m talking to my friends are saying, she`s a sweet girl, she worked hard, and she`s a nice girl.
BERNHARD: Who worked hard? Are you kidding me, she worked hard?
That's a lot of hate to direct at a 20 year old kid who placed third in a nationally televised dance contest. What did she do to deserve it? Nothing, even the plane that so called "Daily Beast Senior Correspondent" claimed as Palin's own was actually provided by ABC. Is that indicative of the journalism we'll see at the newly formed merger of "BeastWeek"? If so, it still may represent an improvement from the original Newsweek, but not by much...
I suppose liberalism now condones attacking the children of politicians once they have run out ammunition against their parents, although I would assume that the reverse does not hold true, and that calling Sasha and Malia names for exploiting the American taxpayer by taking part in their mother's Spanish vacation would not be accompanied by a laugh track.
Or could this be just a continuation of the liberal gang-rape of female conservatives, now extended to their children by dint of the blood that runs through their veins?
For some reason, when liberals see a Sarah Palin or a Carrie Prejean [and now a Christine O'Donnell], the impulse immediately is for the lowest road possible: not to engage them, but to defile them. Not to prove them wrong, but to humiliate them in the vilest way possible. The immediate, insatiable urge of the Left is to wreck a female adversary so completely that no one can look at them the same way; so that anyone who sees their victim will see the marks on them and turn away in disgust or openly mock with righteous venom, and to hopefully so emotionally destroy their female "enemies" that their self-esteem is ravaged, and they slink away from public life, alone and ashamed.
There's a word for this type of assault. Rape.
Yes, the assault isn't physical, but the thought process behind the rapes of Palin and Prejean are identical to that of the common street rapist: To defile, degrade, humiliate, embarrass, and make themselves feel better in the process. A broken victim is what each hopes to obtain, and neither stops the assault until the surrender is complete.
Again, when it comes to conservative females, the Left (and the media) has simply divided them into two categories: Nuts, or sluts. And that makes Joy Behar, Sandra Bernhard, and Rebecca Dana nothing more than common rapists. Worse, even, as they do not get any enjoyment from the act, but - like ghetto gang ho's who will hold an innocent down so that others may defile her - are doing it simply for the approval they get from others. They will jump on the dogpile and degrade and deface where they can, all for...the anticipated roar of approval from the crowd.
Welcome, Joy, Sarah, and Dana, to the very bottom of human ladder. How far you have fallen, to commit hate crimes not even as an end in themselves, but for the pathetic little ego-boost that comes with a smattering of applause. And like coke addicts chasing the high, you continually sank lower and lower as the adoration grew sparser, hoping that an act of true defilement would once again boost you to the top, where you may have spent one brief, dizzying moment...
Well, you've succeeded. In defiling yourself, that is - worse than any other could have done in your stead. But that's OK with us, too. You're not the first, won't be the last. Down here in the Ninth Circle of the Damned, we have a special table reserved for you....
JOY BEHAR, HOST: After weeks of speculation that the low-scoring Bristol Palin could actually take the "Dancing With The Stars`" win, the nation breathed the sigh of relief last night as Jennifer Grey was crowned the champion (ph). With me now to talk about this and other stories in the news are Sandra Bernhard
comedian and singer, Rebecca Dana, senior correspondent for the Daily Beast...
BEHAR: So, Sandra, were you ready to shoot the TV last night?
SANDRA BERNHARD, COMEDIAN: I twittered for the entire two hours. My eyeballs were falling out of my head. I said, first of all, I said, Cander and Ebb would not allow this.
(LAUGHTER)
BERNHARD: You cannot be part of the Palin legacy and dance to Cander and Ebb in a cage.
BEHAR: Yes.
BERNHARD: I mean, Bob Fosse, he turned over in his grave.
BEHAR: What`s her name, Bristol on today`s "View" said something like --
BERNHARD: How did she do it? How did she get to New York to do the "View"?
BEHAR: I don`t know.
REBECCA DANA, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, THE DAILY BEAST: They have their own plane, these people.
BERNHARD: She`s such a hooker. She got on a flight after losing last night.
BEHAR: How did they deal with ABC? I think that the losers come on the "View" and they dance. She said that her mother likes her being in the cage.
BERNHARD: She`s supposed to be the spokesperson for abstinence and yet wears candies shoes which like you say -- I`m wearing these (INAUDIBLE). I`m thrown (ph) out of a car at full speed. You know what I mean? These are like total like hooker shoes. By all means, have candies underwrite abstinence.
BEHAR: You know, there`s a backlash on me because a lot of people when I`m talking to my friends are saying, she`s a sweet girl, she worked hard, and she`s a nice girl.
BERNHARD: Who worked hard? Are you kidding me, she worked hard?
That's a lot of hate to direct at a 20 year old kid who placed third in a nationally televised dance contest. What did she do to deserve it? Nothing, even the plane that so called "Daily Beast Senior Correspondent" claimed as Palin's own was actually provided by ABC. Is that indicative of the journalism we'll see at the newly formed merger of "BeastWeek"? If so, it still may represent an improvement from the original Newsweek, but not by much...
I suppose liberalism now condones attacking the children of politicians once they have run out ammunition against their parents, although I would assume that the reverse does not hold true, and that calling Sasha and Malia names for exploiting the American taxpayer by taking part in their mother's Spanish vacation would not be accompanied by a laugh track.
Or could this be just a continuation of the liberal gang-rape of female conservatives, now extended to their children by dint of the blood that runs through their veins?
For some reason, when liberals see a Sarah Palin or a Carrie Prejean [and now a Christine O'Donnell], the impulse immediately is for the lowest road possible: not to engage them, but to defile them. Not to prove them wrong, but to humiliate them in the vilest way possible. The immediate, insatiable urge of the Left is to wreck a female adversary so completely that no one can look at them the same way; so that anyone who sees their victim will see the marks on them and turn away in disgust or openly mock with righteous venom, and to hopefully so emotionally destroy their female "enemies" that their self-esteem is ravaged, and they slink away from public life, alone and ashamed.
There's a word for this type of assault. Rape.
Yes, the assault isn't physical, but the thought process behind the rapes of Palin and Prejean are identical to that of the common street rapist: To defile, degrade, humiliate, embarrass, and make themselves feel better in the process. A broken victim is what each hopes to obtain, and neither stops the assault until the surrender is complete.
Again, when it comes to conservative females, the Left (and the media) has simply divided them into two categories: Nuts, or sluts. And that makes Joy Behar, Sandra Bernhard, and Rebecca Dana nothing more than common rapists. Worse, even, as they do not get any enjoyment from the act, but - like ghetto gang ho's who will hold an innocent down so that others may defile her - are doing it simply for the approval they get from others. They will jump on the dogpile and degrade and deface where they can, all for...the anticipated roar of approval from the crowd.
Welcome, Joy, Sarah, and Dana, to the very bottom of human ladder. How far you have fallen, to commit hate crimes not even as an end in themselves, but for the pathetic little ego-boost that comes with a smattering of applause. And like coke addicts chasing the high, you continually sank lower and lower as the adoration grew sparser, hoping that an act of true defilement would once again boost you to the top, where you may have spent one brief, dizzying moment...
Well, you've succeeded. In defiling yourself, that is - worse than any other could have done in your stead. But that's OK with us, too. You're not the first, won't be the last. Down here in the Ninth Circle of the Damned, we have a special table reserved for you....
Saturday, November 27, 2010
DHS Seizing And Disabling Info-Sharing Websites?
Well, this is just the sort of thing a rogue government would not announce, and just the sort of attack on your freedom a rogue government would enact on a national holiday weekend:
The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.
ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.
The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."
For instance, 2009jersey.com, 51607.com, and amoyhy.com have each been seized.
One of the site owners told TorrentFreak that his site was shut down without any notice or warning.
The effort come as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill.
Ah, it's a fascist classic, using heavy-handed government agencies to shut down information corridors that facilitate exchange amongst free people, all in the name of national security. Even all the more heinous, when one realizes that the Obama administration has been trying to get the legal authority to do this for some time, and failing that, has decided to work around the inconvenient barriers of the constitution and empower extra-legal government agencies to seize private property and shut down their operations with no explanations given (or apparently required).
And again, exercised over a holiday weekend, where many are out of the reach of their normal modes of information-gathering, and will walk into work on Monday and encounter a strange new world, where inconvenient websites are shuttered in the name of "national security". Reminds me of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, which the Arabs launched via sneak attack on Yom Kippor, one of the holiest days of the Jewish faith. We, too, have been sucker-punched (again, by a Muslim)?
And the suckers that were just punched the hardest are the so-called "youth voters", who flocked to Obama en masse because they thought he was cool just like them. Sorry, tweeners, but Homeland Security has got your IP address right now, and is looking for anything you may have downloaded from Morpheus and LimeWire as well.
Maybe you guys can talk to him, and, you know...remind him he used to be "cool":
Chinese Guy: You pay now! Now!
Bart: What happened to you, China? You used to be cool..
Chinese Guy: Hey China's still cool! You pay later! Later !
Update: Don Surber:
What the devil are these idiots doing?
This administration refuses to shut down illegal aliens (something the Bush administration also refused to do) but the Immigration and Customs Enforcement can go after Legal Americans to protect Hollywood and the recording industry from a few people who pass around their music.
I suppose next the Department of Defense will send drones after people who record music off the radio....
The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.
ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.
The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."
For instance, 2009jersey.com, 51607.com, and amoyhy.com have each been seized.
One of the site owners told TorrentFreak that his site was shut down without any notice or warning.
The effort come as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill.
Ah, it's a fascist classic, using heavy-handed government agencies to shut down information corridors that facilitate exchange amongst free people, all in the name of national security. Even all the more heinous, when one realizes that the Obama administration has been trying to get the legal authority to do this for some time, and failing that, has decided to work around the inconvenient barriers of the constitution and empower extra-legal government agencies to seize private property and shut down their operations with no explanations given (or apparently required).
And again, exercised over a holiday weekend, where many are out of the reach of their normal modes of information-gathering, and will walk into work on Monday and encounter a strange new world, where inconvenient websites are shuttered in the name of "national security". Reminds me of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, which the Arabs launched via sneak attack on Yom Kippor, one of the holiest days of the Jewish faith. We, too, have been sucker-punched (again, by a Muslim)?
And the suckers that were just punched the hardest are the so-called "youth voters", who flocked to Obama en masse because they thought he was cool just like them. Sorry, tweeners, but Homeland Security has got your IP address right now, and is looking for anything you may have downloaded from Morpheus and LimeWire as well.
Maybe you guys can talk to him, and, you know...remind him he used to be "cool":
Chinese Guy: You pay now! Now!
Bart: What happened to you, China? You used to be cool..
Chinese Guy: Hey China's still cool! You pay later! Later !
Update: Don Surber:
What the devil are these idiots doing?
This administration refuses to shut down illegal aliens (something the Bush administration also refused to do) but the Immigration and Customs Enforcement can go after Legal Americans to protect Hollywood and the recording industry from a few people who pass around their music.
I suppose next the Department of Defense will send drones after people who record music off the radio....
Friday, November 26, 2010
New WikiLeaks Release To Embarrass Obama?
That's what Reuters is implying:
Classified U.S. diplomatic cables reporting corruption allegations against foreign governments and leaders are expected in official documents that WikiLeaks plans to release soon, sources said on Wednesday.
Three sources familiar with the State Department cables held by WikiLeaks say the corruption allegations in them are major enough to cause serious embarrassment for foreign governments and politicians named in them.
They said the release was expected next week, but could come earlier.
The detailed, candid reporting by U.S. diplomats also may create foreign policy complications for the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, the sources said.
Among the countries whose politicians feature in the reports are Russia, Afghanistan and former Soviet republics in Central Asia. But other reports also detail potentially embarrassing allegations reported to Washington from U.S. diplomats in other regions including East Asia and Europe...
I think Obama can get away with supporting some corrupt regimes in the name of national security, and even get support for it from conservatives and what realists remain in the Democratic party.
But the problem for Obama will be how he responded to reports about various regimes being duplicitous in their dealings with the United States - did he act on them, or ignore them, and allow himself (and by extension, the American people)to be taken in like a carnival mark? And if he did ignore them, did he do so out of doubt that the information he was receiving was accurate, or did he do so because the information conflicted with his worldview and long-held ideological biases?
If it turns out to be the latter rather than the former, Obama will be crippled even further in his role as president, as the nation will view him as a man who refuses to recognize reality and instead is operating with a virtual Hitler-in-the-bunker-moving-his-imaginary-armies-around mindset.
One advantage Obama has is that the New York Times is already in possession of the WikiLeaks documentation, and will minimize the extent and the importance of what is released to the best of their ability in order to protect him. A far cry from Woodward and Bernstein, no?
And that will mitigate some of the damage, but not all. As the health care debate demonstrated (much to Gary Ackerman's dismay), people can obtain information on their own when they want, and how they want. The truth of Obama's policies will be out, no matter how many sawdust barriers the press tries to throw up before him...
Classified U.S. diplomatic cables reporting corruption allegations against foreign governments and leaders are expected in official documents that WikiLeaks plans to release soon, sources said on Wednesday.
Three sources familiar with the State Department cables held by WikiLeaks say the corruption allegations in them are major enough to cause serious embarrassment for foreign governments and politicians named in them.
They said the release was expected next week, but could come earlier.
The detailed, candid reporting by U.S. diplomats also may create foreign policy complications for the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, the sources said.
Among the countries whose politicians feature in the reports are Russia, Afghanistan and former Soviet republics in Central Asia. But other reports also detail potentially embarrassing allegations reported to Washington from U.S. diplomats in other regions including East Asia and Europe...
I think Obama can get away with supporting some corrupt regimes in the name of national security, and even get support for it from conservatives and what realists remain in the Democratic party.
But the problem for Obama will be how he responded to reports about various regimes being duplicitous in their dealings with the United States - did he act on them, or ignore them, and allow himself (and by extension, the American people)to be taken in like a carnival mark? And if he did ignore them, did he do so out of doubt that the information he was receiving was accurate, or did he do so because the information conflicted with his worldview and long-held ideological biases?
If it turns out to be the latter rather than the former, Obama will be crippled even further in his role as president, as the nation will view him as a man who refuses to recognize reality and instead is operating with a virtual Hitler-in-the-bunker-moving-his-imaginary-armies-around mindset.
One advantage Obama has is that the New York Times is already in possession of the WikiLeaks documentation, and will minimize the extent and the importance of what is released to the best of their ability in order to protect him. A far cry from Woodward and Bernstein, no?
And that will mitigate some of the damage, but not all. As the health care debate demonstrated (much to Gary Ackerman's dismay), people can obtain information on their own when they want, and how they want. The truth of Obama's policies will be out, no matter how many sawdust barriers the press tries to throw up before him...
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thanksgiving Day: The Ultimate Triumph Of Capitalism Over Socialism !
Not that the liberals running our public education system would ever ponder, or discuss, the economics behind the first Thanksgiving - a combination of financial illiteracy and the need to distort history to fit their ideology contribute to that - but it is a part of the story that needs to be told, as it relates directly to the success of this nature, and to the crucial choices we face today.
Caroline Baum uncovers the "secret history of Thanksgiving"
The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and established the Plymouth Bay Colony. The first winters were harsh, and crop yields were poor. In spite of their deep religious convictions, the Pilgrims took to stealing from one another.
Half the Pilgrims died or returned to England in the first year. Those who remained went hungry. Even so, the 53 remaining pilgrims celebrated the harvest, as was the custom in England, in the autumn of 1621.
Finally, in the spring of 1623, Governor Bradford and the others “begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery,” according to Bradford’s history.
One of the traditions the Pilgrims had brought with them from England was a practice known as “farming in common.” Everything they produced was put into a common pool; the harvest was rationed according to need.
They had thought “that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing,” Bradford recounts.
They were wrong. “For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte,” Bradford writes.
Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. They thought it an “injuestice” to receive the same allotment of food and clothing as those who didn’t pull their weight. What they lacked were appropriate incentives.
After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford decided to experiment when it came time for spring planting in 1623. He allocated a plot of land to each family, that “they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves.”
The results were nothing short of miraculous.
Bradford writes: “This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content.”
The women now went willingly into the field, carrying their young children on their backs. Those who previously claimed they were too old or ill to work embraced the idea of private property once they could enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Eventually they produced enough corn to trade the excess for furs and other desired commodities.
Given the proper incentives, the Pilgrims enjoyed a bountiful harvest in the fall of 1623, and set aside “a day of thanksgiving” to thank God for their good fortune.
“Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day,” Bradford writes in an entry from 1647, the last year covered by his history.
Their good fortune had little to do with God. In 1623, they were responding to the same incentives that, almost four centuries later, form the basis for free and prosperous economies.
Alas, this history is now secret, because it is a complete repudiation of everything liberal dogma holds dear - the servitude of each man to his fellow man, the able enslaved to lazy and incompetent, who grow fat on their labor while doing nothing to earn their rewards. While at the top, a precious few elite direct the human concentration camp that is socialism in such a way to fill their pockets and bellies to greater capacity than any of their citizens. All under the threat of force, of course...
The early results of the socialistic/communistic experiment by the Pilgrims have been repeated in every social laboratory it has been tried - from the Soviet Union to Cuba to North Korea. And yet, Barack Obama wants to try it one more time here in America, risking the world's greatest wealth machine in an attempt to force reality to bend to his leftist ideology.
We can't let it happen. And one of the best ways to prevent it is through education, and if the liberals who run the school systems refuse to tell our children the truth, we must do it ourselves.
And what better day than Thanksgiving, when our ancestors discovered that capitalism is the true road to prosperity and peace, and will actually bring us closer to God than any "wealth-sharing scam" could ever imagine...
Let the secret be unveiled, with a cry of...Happy Thanksgiving!
Here's the above story, in video form:
If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, "thank you," that would suffice. ~Meister Eckhart
Caroline Baum uncovers the "secret history of Thanksgiving"
The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1620 and established the Plymouth Bay Colony. The first winters were harsh, and crop yields were poor. In spite of their deep religious convictions, the Pilgrims took to stealing from one another.
Half the Pilgrims died or returned to England in the first year. Those who remained went hungry. Even so, the 53 remaining pilgrims celebrated the harvest, as was the custom in England, in the autumn of 1621.
Finally, in the spring of 1623, Governor Bradford and the others “begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery,” according to Bradford’s history.
One of the traditions the Pilgrims had brought with them from England was a practice known as “farming in common.” Everything they produced was put into a common pool; the harvest was rationed according to need.
They had thought “that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing,” Bradford recounts.
They were wrong. “For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte,” Bradford writes.
Young, able-bodied men resented working for others without compensation. They thought it an “injuestice” to receive the same allotment of food and clothing as those who didn’t pull their weight. What they lacked were appropriate incentives.
After the Pilgrims had endured near-starvation for three winters, Bradford decided to experiment when it came time for spring planting in 1623. He allocated a plot of land to each family, that “they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves.”
The results were nothing short of miraculous.
Bradford writes: “This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted than other waise would have bene by any means the Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave far better content.”
The women now went willingly into the field, carrying their young children on their backs. Those who previously claimed they were too old or ill to work embraced the idea of private property once they could enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Eventually they produced enough corn to trade the excess for furs and other desired commodities.
Given the proper incentives, the Pilgrims enjoyed a bountiful harvest in the fall of 1623, and set aside “a day of thanksgiving” to thank God for their good fortune.
“Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day,” Bradford writes in an entry from 1647, the last year covered by his history.
Their good fortune had little to do with God. In 1623, they were responding to the same incentives that, almost four centuries later, form the basis for free and prosperous economies.
Alas, this history is now secret, because it is a complete repudiation of everything liberal dogma holds dear - the servitude of each man to his fellow man, the able enslaved to lazy and incompetent, who grow fat on their labor while doing nothing to earn their rewards. While at the top, a precious few elite direct the human concentration camp that is socialism in such a way to fill their pockets and bellies to greater capacity than any of their citizens. All under the threat of force, of course...
The early results of the socialistic/communistic experiment by the Pilgrims have been repeated in every social laboratory it has been tried - from the Soviet Union to Cuba to North Korea. And yet, Barack Obama wants to try it one more time here in America, risking the world's greatest wealth machine in an attempt to force reality to bend to his leftist ideology.
We can't let it happen. And one of the best ways to prevent it is through education, and if the liberals who run the school systems refuse to tell our children the truth, we must do it ourselves.
And what better day than Thanksgiving, when our ancestors discovered that capitalism is the true road to prosperity and peace, and will actually bring us closer to God than any "wealth-sharing scam" could ever imagine...
Let the secret be unveiled, with a cry of...Happy Thanksgiving!
Here's the above story, in video form:
If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, "thank you," that would suffice. ~Meister Eckhart
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.): "People Have No Clue"
Ah, it's not a complete day until one leading member of the Democratic party calls the American people stupid - or, in this case, clueless.
Yesterday we had Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell use the "Obama excuse": Voters were angry, so they didn't think logically, therefore they voted for Republicans, and PA Dems unfairly got their asses kicked. Today, we have Representative Ackerman, who is currently trying to set up a trap for the Congressional Republicans. He's just sooo clever:
Using a somewhat unusual tactic, Ackerman, a strong advocate for the healthcare reform law, vowed Tuesday to introduce a series of bills next week that would roll back some of the most popular provisions of the law.
The congressman said the legislation — all titled the HIPA-CRIT (Health Insurance Protects America—Can't Repeal IT) — will give Republicans a chance to "put up, or sit down" on their campaign promise to repeal the eight-month-old law.
"This will be the big chance for Republicans to do what they've vowed to do," the 13-term member said. "These bills will be their chance to at long last restore liberty and repeal the evil monster they've dubbed 'Obamacare.' "
Ackerman has begun circulating a letter to fellow lawmakers telling them to "Go ahead, make my day. Become a cosponsor."
"The Affordable Care Act contains these and many other foolish protections for our constituents," the letter states. "So, join other Members of Congress who want to deprive their constituents of these silly safeguards from the big insurance companies. You can cast your courageous vote on a series of SIX bills to do it. Feel free to call it the HIPA-CRIT Act when you explain your vote."
Will Ackerman's fiendish plan succeed? He reminds me on one Wile E. Coyote ( a "Super Genius", as his business card is wont to say - how apt) whose elaborate plans to snare one Road Runner always seem to backfire... spectacularly.
Ackerman's been reading polls, and he's trying to force the Republicans to either eliminate the "most popular" areas of reform, or vote against it, and thus leave them open to the charge of not repealing the bill when given the chance. Of course, the Republicans can vote for Ackerman's bill, and simply say they need to repeal Obamacare in order to
replace it with a system that won't gut Medicare, create death panels or create weeks-long waits for doctor's services.
Sounds reasonable, and something the American people might accept as a pathway to fix the errors of the previous Democratic Congress. And what would Ackerman say about that? Oh, wait, he already said it:
Ackerman defended the Democrats' legislative record while talking to reporters on Capitol Hill last week.
"Republicans have mischaracterized a lot of the stuff that we've done," he said. "The policy was great [but] we didn't market it. People had no clue."
Because we don't know what to think unless the Democrats tell us what to think, right, Gary? It's not as if we have access to computers, televisions, newspapers, and are capable of coming to an informed decision...right?
What are you saying, Congressman? That if you send out a legislative proposal on a parade float with shiny balloons and kick-line girls and solemn-looking gentlemen dressed like historical American figures while the band plays marching songs, that Americans will swallow any load of shit you intend to serve us? That unless we are properly "marketed" to, we won't have a clue what to think and can fall prey at any time to unhelpful thoughts, illogical decisions, and stupid electoral choices?
That's what it sounds like to me. But go ahead, pal, call us hypocrites and tempt the tiger by sticking your hand out and daring him to bite it; all the while thinking the dumb bastards would never, ever, actually go for it...
Yesterday we had Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell use the "Obama excuse": Voters were angry, so they didn't think logically, therefore they voted for Republicans, and PA Dems unfairly got their asses kicked. Today, we have Representative Ackerman, who is currently trying to set up a trap for the Congressional Republicans. He's just sooo clever:
Using a somewhat unusual tactic, Ackerman, a strong advocate for the healthcare reform law, vowed Tuesday to introduce a series of bills next week that would roll back some of the most popular provisions of the law.
The congressman said the legislation — all titled the HIPA-CRIT (Health Insurance Protects America—Can't Repeal IT) — will give Republicans a chance to "put up, or sit down" on their campaign promise to repeal the eight-month-old law.
"This will be the big chance for Republicans to do what they've vowed to do," the 13-term member said. "These bills will be their chance to at long last restore liberty and repeal the evil monster they've dubbed 'Obamacare.' "
Ackerman has begun circulating a letter to fellow lawmakers telling them to "Go ahead, make my day. Become a cosponsor."
"The Affordable Care Act contains these and many other foolish protections for our constituents," the letter states. "So, join other Members of Congress who want to deprive their constituents of these silly safeguards from the big insurance companies. You can cast your courageous vote on a series of SIX bills to do it. Feel free to call it the HIPA-CRIT Act when you explain your vote."
Will Ackerman's fiendish plan succeed? He reminds me on one Wile E. Coyote ( a "Super Genius", as his business card is wont to say - how apt) whose elaborate plans to snare one Road Runner always seem to backfire... spectacularly.
Ackerman's been reading polls, and he's trying to force the Republicans to either eliminate the "most popular" areas of reform, or vote against it, and thus leave them open to the charge of not repealing the bill when given the chance. Of course, the Republicans can vote for Ackerman's bill, and simply say they need to repeal Obamacare in order to
replace it with a system that won't gut Medicare, create death panels or create weeks-long waits for doctor's services.
Sounds reasonable, and something the American people might accept as a pathway to fix the errors of the previous Democratic Congress. And what would Ackerman say about that? Oh, wait, he already said it:
Ackerman defended the Democrats' legislative record while talking to reporters on Capitol Hill last week.
"Republicans have mischaracterized a lot of the stuff that we've done," he said. "The policy was great [but] we didn't market it. People had no clue."
Because we don't know what to think unless the Democrats tell us what to think, right, Gary? It's not as if we have access to computers, televisions, newspapers, and are capable of coming to an informed decision...right?
What are you saying, Congressman? That if you send out a legislative proposal on a parade float with shiny balloons and kick-line girls and solemn-looking gentlemen dressed like historical American figures while the band plays marching songs, that Americans will swallow any load of shit you intend to serve us? That unless we are properly "marketed" to, we won't have a clue what to think and can fall prey at any time to unhelpful thoughts, illogical decisions, and stupid electoral choices?
That's what it sounds like to me. But go ahead, pal, call us hypocrites and tempt the tiger by sticking your hand out and daring him to bite it; all the while thinking the dumb bastards would never, ever, actually go for it...
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Velma Hart: Still not tired of defending Barack Obama...
....even after his economy has sent her back the the realm of franks & beans:
The Obama supporter who told the president during a televised town-hall meeting that she was "deeply disappointed" in him has lost her job.
Velma Hart, who graced the front page of The Post in September after her direct questioning of the president, said yesterday that she's trying "focus on the positive and be optimistic."
Hart -- who told the president she feared her family would have to go back to the "hot dogs-and-beans era" -- was laid off late last week as chief financial officer for AMVETS, a Maryland-based charity that aids veterans.
"They called me in on a Friday afternoon and said they had made a decision . . . [they] should make that cut," she told CNBC.
At the town-hall meeting, Hart told Obama that she was, "exhausted [from] defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for -- and deeply disappointed with where we are right now."
Even after the firing, Velma has not lost The One True Faith:
She told CNBC yesterday that she is still an Obama supporter and she may now look into his administration's program to help homeowners adjust the terms of their mortgages.
Good luck with that. More likely to get manna from heaven than loan guarentees from the banks....
Suspicious about a conspiracy? Me too...this, from her (ex)boss:
"It's not anything she did," said Jim King, the national executive director of Am Vets. "She got bit by the same snake that has bit a lot of people. It was a move to cut our bottom line. Most not-for-profits are seeing their money pinched."
"Velma was a good employee," he said. "It was just a matter of looking at the bottom line and where could we make the best cuts and survive."
King would not say whether the organization had had other layoffs.
Sounds like Velma was the only one who was let go. Could be that she was making some nice coin, and AMVET felt it was better to let one person at a higher level go than three beneath her. If so, well...Neither Velma not Barack could argue against the decision making process there. What self-respecting liberal would keep one big earner as opposed to three folks making the bottom of the pay scale?
But was she forced out, due to her previous remarks? it's possible but currently unprovable, although I think it is important to note that AMVETS does have a legislative agenda, which likely involves a lot of the usual you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours. Could AMVEST have been told to "fire that Velma Hart woman who embarrassed Barack Obama" if they wanted to see any of their legislation pass? Is this a case of revenge being a dish served very,very cold?
Not provable. Yet.
I feel for Velma, just like anyone who loses their job today. No matter what type of benefits are out there, it is not going to be enough to preserve the lifestyle she has worked to earn. The only situation where that is possible is within an economy with powerful, consistent job growth, which is the one thing Barack Obama's ideology is singularly incapable of creating.
I'll leave you with some comments left on the Washington Post article:
...She had two children in private school and a high paying job, and she voted for change?"
Yes, because she is a feeling, compassionate Democrat who only wants to alleviate other people's problems with your money...
"And quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly: Is this my new reality?" Quite frankly, Ms. Hart, yes.
But then, the rest of us knew that when we went into the voting booth in November of 2008. Didn't you?
The Obama supporter who told the president during a televised town-hall meeting that she was "deeply disappointed" in him has lost her job.
Velma Hart, who graced the front page of The Post in September after her direct questioning of the president, said yesterday that she's trying "focus on the positive and be optimistic."
Hart -- who told the president she feared her family would have to go back to the "hot dogs-and-beans era" -- was laid off late last week as chief financial officer for AMVETS, a Maryland-based charity that aids veterans.
"They called me in on a Friday afternoon and said they had made a decision . . . [they] should make that cut," she told CNBC.
At the town-hall meeting, Hart told Obama that she was, "exhausted [from] defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for -- and deeply disappointed with where we are right now."
Even after the firing, Velma has not lost The One True Faith:
She told CNBC yesterday that she is still an Obama supporter and she may now look into his administration's program to help homeowners adjust the terms of their mortgages.
Good luck with that. More likely to get manna from heaven than loan guarentees from the banks....
Suspicious about a conspiracy? Me too...this, from her (ex)boss:
"It's not anything she did," said Jim King, the national executive director of Am Vets. "She got bit by the same snake that has bit a lot of people. It was a move to cut our bottom line. Most not-for-profits are seeing their money pinched."
"Velma was a good employee," he said. "It was just a matter of looking at the bottom line and where could we make the best cuts and survive."
King would not say whether the organization had had other layoffs.
Sounds like Velma was the only one who was let go. Could be that she was making some nice coin, and AMVET felt it was better to let one person at a higher level go than three beneath her. If so, well...Neither Velma not Barack could argue against the decision making process there. What self-respecting liberal would keep one big earner as opposed to three folks making the bottom of the pay scale?
But was she forced out, due to her previous remarks? it's possible but currently unprovable, although I think it is important to note that AMVETS does have a legislative agenda, which likely involves a lot of the usual you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours. Could AMVEST have been told to "fire that Velma Hart woman who embarrassed Barack Obama" if they wanted to see any of their legislation pass? Is this a case of revenge being a dish served very,very cold?
Not provable. Yet.
I feel for Velma, just like anyone who loses their job today. No matter what type of benefits are out there, it is not going to be enough to preserve the lifestyle she has worked to earn. The only situation where that is possible is within an economy with powerful, consistent job growth, which is the one thing Barack Obama's ideology is singularly incapable of creating.
I'll leave you with some comments left on the Washington Post article:
...She had two children in private school and a high paying job, and she voted for change?"
Yes, because she is a feeling, compassionate Democrat who only wants to alleviate other people's problems with your money...
"And quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly: Is this my new reality?" Quite frankly, Ms. Hart, yes.
But then, the rest of us knew that when we went into the voting booth in November of 2008. Didn't you?
Presidential Imposter Swindled By Taliban Imposter
From the classic Simpsons episode, Bart the Genius, watch as Bart - who cheated his way into a gifted school - gets swindled out of his lunch by his classmates:
LUNCH - Bart sits with a group of students a table.
STUDENT: Tell you what, Bart, I'll trade you the weight of a bowling ball on the eighth moon of Jupiter from my lunch for the weight of a feather on the second moon of Neptune from your lunch.
BART: Well, OK.
[The student snatches up Bart's sub.]
STUDENT: There you go.
He hands him a grape. Everybody laughs.
STUDENT 2: I'll trade you 1,000 picoleters of my milk for 4 gills of yours.
BART: Well, all right.
STUDENT 2: Anything you say.
[He takes Bart's carton and pours four tiny droplets into Bart's cup.]
STUDENT 3: Uh, Bart, would you wager your cupcake against my---?
BART: Save your breath. (hands over the cupcake and walks away dejected)
STUDENT 3: What do you think of the new kid?
STUDENT 1: A rather mediocre genius.
STUDENT 2: Yes, not very bright at all.
(the scene starts at the 2:20~ish mark)
We bring this up to add context to perhaps the greatest flub (to date) of the Obama administration's attempts at conducting foreign policy...it appears as if the "negotiations" we were conducting with a "top level" member of the Taliban were actually being conducted with an impostor at best, a Pakistani/Taliban spy at worst.
Unbelievable:
For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”
President Obama and his team of smart diplomats,taken in by a scam so hackneyed it could have come from a Nigerian email account.
More:
Afghan and American officials have been puzzling over who the man was. Some officials say the man may simply have been a freelance fraud, posing as a Taliban leader in order to enrich himself.
Others say the man may have been a Taliban agent. “The Taliban are cleverer than the Americans and our own intelligence service,” said a senior Afghan official who is familiar with the case. “They are playing games.”
Others suspect that the fake Taliban leader, whose identity is not known, may have been dispatched by the Pakistani intelligence service, known by its initials, the ISI.
Cleverer than us? That's debatable. But smarter than the "mediocre genius" who currently poses as the American president? That's undeniable.
What next, a televised address from the Oval Office saying our national debt has been resolved thanks to our winning of an international lottery, the proceeds of which we will receive after we wire a $1B "handling fee" to an overseas account?
Were it any other nation, I would be on my knees, laughing. Instead, I weep...and they ain't tears of laughter, either....
LUNCH - Bart sits with a group of students a table.
STUDENT: Tell you what, Bart, I'll trade you the weight of a bowling ball on the eighth moon of Jupiter from my lunch for the weight of a feather on the second moon of Neptune from your lunch.
BART: Well, OK.
[The student snatches up Bart's sub.]
STUDENT: There you go.
He hands him a grape. Everybody laughs.
STUDENT 2: I'll trade you 1,000 picoleters of my milk for 4 gills of yours.
BART: Well, all right.
STUDENT 2: Anything you say.
[He takes Bart's carton and pours four tiny droplets into Bart's cup.]
STUDENT 3: Uh, Bart, would you wager your cupcake against my---?
BART: Save your breath. (hands over the cupcake and walks away dejected)
STUDENT 3: What do you think of the new kid?
STUDENT 1: A rather mediocre genius.
STUDENT 2: Yes, not very bright at all.
(the scene starts at the 2:20~ish mark)
We bring this up to add context to perhaps the greatest flub (to date) of the Obama administration's attempts at conducting foreign policy...it appears as if the "negotiations" we were conducting with a "top level" member of the Taliban were actually being conducted with an impostor at best, a Pakistani/Taliban spy at worst.
Unbelievable:
For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.
But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.
“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”
President Obama and his team of smart diplomats,taken in by a scam so hackneyed it could have come from a Nigerian email account.
More:
Afghan and American officials have been puzzling over who the man was. Some officials say the man may simply have been a freelance fraud, posing as a Taliban leader in order to enrich himself.
Others say the man may have been a Taliban agent. “The Taliban are cleverer than the Americans and our own intelligence service,” said a senior Afghan official who is familiar with the case. “They are playing games.”
Others suspect that the fake Taliban leader, whose identity is not known, may have been dispatched by the Pakistani intelligence service, known by its initials, the ISI.
Cleverer than us? That's debatable. But smarter than the "mediocre genius" who currently poses as the American president? That's undeniable.
What next, a televised address from the Oval Office saying our national debt has been resolved thanks to our winning of an international lottery, the proceeds of which we will receive after we wire a $1B "handling fee" to an overseas account?
Were it any other nation, I would be on my knees, laughing. Instead, I weep...and they ain't tears of laughter, either....
Monday, November 22, 2010
Yahoo! Lies, Americans Die
Here's the headline on Yahoo's home page:
Jury convicts Salvadoran immigrant of killing Chandra Levy
Here's what's in the body of the AP story:
Ingmar Guandique was convicted of first-degree murder for attacking Levy while she exercised in Washington's Rock Creek Park in May 2001.
Investigators eventually focused on Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, and brought formal charges last year. Prosecutors acknowledged they had little direct evidence but said Levy's death fit a pattern of other crimes committed by Guandique in the park.
Let's define our terms, shall we?
Definitions of immigrant:
•a person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there;
•Someone who has become a lawful permanent resident
Definition of illegal immigrant:
•A person who enters and lives in a country in violation of that country's laws.
Yahoo intentionally used the wrong word in their headline leading to the story of Chandra Levy's murderer. They deliberately chose to mislead the reading public about the facts of this case, because the facts did not fit Yahoo's preferred narrative, which is essentially "open borders". Rather than open their minds about the logic and wisdom of allowing millions of undocumented illegal aliens to become American citizens, they attempted to change the facts, in an attempt to bend reality to their worldview.
Amazing that a news service would actually deliberately lie to a public that comes to them for information in order to keep them in the dark about the results of government policies - policies, of course, that Yahoo supports.
Of course, there is recourse here - simply ignore Yahoo news stories, and do not use their web portal to search and surf.
F*ck you, Yahoo. Come to me when you've discovered a shred of decency...
UPDATE 958PM: Well, that was quick. Story has vanished off the Yahoo home page, now buried within their US news page with a different headline - actually, the one the AP used originally: Man in past jogger attacks guilty of Levy slaying.
But why no0 mention of his immigration status, especially as the issue is part of a huge national debate? Gee, if the guy was caught with a Gadsden flag, do you think that would have made the headline? Just asking...
Jury convicts Salvadoran immigrant of killing Chandra Levy
Here's what's in the body of the AP story:
Ingmar Guandique was convicted of first-degree murder for attacking Levy while she exercised in Washington's Rock Creek Park in May 2001.
Investigators eventually focused on Guandique, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, and brought formal charges last year. Prosecutors acknowledged they had little direct evidence but said Levy's death fit a pattern of other crimes committed by Guandique in the park.
Let's define our terms, shall we?
Definitions of immigrant:
•a person who comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there;
•Someone who has become a lawful permanent resident
Definition of illegal immigrant:
•A person who enters and lives in a country in violation of that country's laws.
Yahoo intentionally used the wrong word in their headline leading to the story of Chandra Levy's murderer. They deliberately chose to mislead the reading public about the facts of this case, because the facts did not fit Yahoo's preferred narrative, which is essentially "open borders". Rather than open their minds about the logic and wisdom of allowing millions of undocumented illegal aliens to become American citizens, they attempted to change the facts, in an attempt to bend reality to their worldview.
Amazing that a news service would actually deliberately lie to a public that comes to them for information in order to keep them in the dark about the results of government policies - policies, of course, that Yahoo supports.
Of course, there is recourse here - simply ignore Yahoo news stories, and do not use their web portal to search and surf.
F*ck you, Yahoo. Come to me when you've discovered a shred of decency...
(see below screenshot - 2nd news story)
UPDATE 958PM: Well, that was quick. Story has vanished off the Yahoo home page, now buried within their US news page with a different headline - actually, the one the AP used originally: Man in past jogger attacks guilty of Levy slaying.
But why no0 mention of his immigration status, especially as the issue is part of a huge national debate? Gee, if the guy was caught with a Gadsden flag, do you think that would have made the headline? Just asking...
Hispanics Coming Home...To The Republican Party?
I wrote this back in July:
...Obama and his cadres, whose primary interaction with Hispanics is with lobbyists for ethnic identity groups, fail to see the concern within the Hispanic communities over illegal immigration.
I work with many Hispanics, we talk about it all the time. Illegals flock to their communities so as to blend in; parents fear for their children as the two-bedroom apartment next door becomes host to a dozen illegals or more - are they hard workers or career criminals? Nobody knows, and with a president advocating a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards illegals, it is the American Hispanic population that is becoming scared, victimized, and terrorized, while being politically patronized.
Was I right, and are many Hispanics turned off by the "open borders" crowd in the Democratic party? Consider the following out of Florida:
In the U.S. Senate race, Hispanic voters favored Cuban-American Republican Marco Rubio by 55 percent, while supporting Gov. Charlie Crist by 23 percent and Democrat Kendrick Meek by 21 percent. Republican Rick Scott won 50 percent of the Hispanic vote, two points ahead of Democrat Alex Sink in one of the closest governor's races in Florida history.
Maybe this is why?
Analysts agree that most voters do not choose candidates based solely on their immigration position. In exit polls this year, only 8 percent of voters nationwide said immigration was their top issue. Latino voters placed immigration well behind the economy and jobs...
The Weekly Standard has more:
New Mexico governor-elect Susana Martinez may present the most compelling example. As Luisita Lopez Torregrosa writes for Politics Daily, Martinez was expected to get 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in her state, which would have been an elevated total for a Republican there. Instead, she over-performed and earned 38 percent of the Hispanic vote against her Democratic opponent. Martinez is emblematic of the Tea Party movement in that she is a fiscal conservative who is also pro-life and unabashedly opposed to same-sex marriage.
So, too, is Marco Rubio of Florida, a fresh face whose meteoric rise on the national scene came against considerable odds
More troubling for Democrats still: In Texas’s 27th Congressional District (which includes Corpus Christi and Brownsville), 28-year incumbent Democrat Solomon Ortiz looks to be losing the recount against Republican challenger Blake Farenthold, in a heavily Hispanic district no less...
...In her two previous Senate campaigns, in 1998 and 2004, Boxer carried 72 percent and 73 percent of the state’s Hispanic voters, respectively. Against Carly Fiorina, her margin of victory among Hispanic voters was cut by a quarter – clearly not enough to turn the tide, but more than just foam on the water.
And yet Obama - to this very moment, as he fights alongside Harry Reid to push the DREAM Act - still believes that what Hispanics really want is the nation to be flooded with people who look like them and sound like them, even if their value system is 180 degrees opposite that of the hardworking Hispanic-American community.
Hispanics are by nature conservative - hard working, family-oriented, church-going, and charitable. They want to get ahead and live the American dream, not be ghettoized in a slum surrounded by people who cut the line to get to this country, only to sponge off the hard-working folks that earned their citizenship the honest way.
Republicans should continue their "Hispanic outreach", and make an honest case for why conservative values fit their needs best, and why they should not be fooled by the amnesty-granters on the Left who are simply looking for more people to force onto the federal dole. Hispanics are natural allies of conservatives; we just need more folks out there like Marco Rubio willing to stand up to the accusations of racism and explain why our philosophy fits the Hispanic creed the best.
But are there enough Republicans with the courage to speak and stand up to the inevitable onslaught of accusatory rhetoric from the mainstream media, the Democratic party, and the rest of the "professional" Left? Ah, there's the rub...
...Obama and his cadres, whose primary interaction with Hispanics is with lobbyists for ethnic identity groups, fail to see the concern within the Hispanic communities over illegal immigration.
I work with many Hispanics, we talk about it all the time. Illegals flock to their communities so as to blend in; parents fear for their children as the two-bedroom apartment next door becomes host to a dozen illegals or more - are they hard workers or career criminals? Nobody knows, and with a president advocating a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards illegals, it is the American Hispanic population that is becoming scared, victimized, and terrorized, while being politically patronized.
Was I right, and are many Hispanics turned off by the "open borders" crowd in the Democratic party? Consider the following out of Florida:
In the U.S. Senate race, Hispanic voters favored Cuban-American Republican Marco Rubio by 55 percent, while supporting Gov. Charlie Crist by 23 percent and Democrat Kendrick Meek by 21 percent. Republican Rick Scott won 50 percent of the Hispanic vote, two points ahead of Democrat Alex Sink in one of the closest governor's races in Florida history.
Maybe this is why?
Analysts agree that most voters do not choose candidates based solely on their immigration position. In exit polls this year, only 8 percent of voters nationwide said immigration was their top issue. Latino voters placed immigration well behind the economy and jobs...
The Weekly Standard has more:
New Mexico governor-elect Susana Martinez may present the most compelling example. As Luisita Lopez Torregrosa writes for Politics Daily, Martinez was expected to get 30 percent of the Hispanic vote in her state, which would have been an elevated total for a Republican there. Instead, she over-performed and earned 38 percent of the Hispanic vote against her Democratic opponent. Martinez is emblematic of the Tea Party movement in that she is a fiscal conservative who is also pro-life and unabashedly opposed to same-sex marriage.
So, too, is Marco Rubio of Florida, a fresh face whose meteoric rise on the national scene came against considerable odds
More troubling for Democrats still: In Texas’s 27th Congressional District (which includes Corpus Christi and Brownsville), 28-year incumbent Democrat Solomon Ortiz looks to be losing the recount against Republican challenger Blake Farenthold, in a heavily Hispanic district no less...
...In her two previous Senate campaigns, in 1998 and 2004, Boxer carried 72 percent and 73 percent of the state’s Hispanic voters, respectively. Against Carly Fiorina, her margin of victory among Hispanic voters was cut by a quarter – clearly not enough to turn the tide, but more than just foam on the water.
And yet Obama - to this very moment, as he fights alongside Harry Reid to push the DREAM Act - still believes that what Hispanics really want is the nation to be flooded with people who look like them and sound like them, even if their value system is 180 degrees opposite that of the hardworking Hispanic-American community.
Hispanics are by nature conservative - hard working, family-oriented, church-going, and charitable. They want to get ahead and live the American dream, not be ghettoized in a slum surrounded by people who cut the line to get to this country, only to sponge off the hard-working folks that earned their citizenship the honest way.
Republicans should continue their "Hispanic outreach", and make an honest case for why conservative values fit their needs best, and why they should not be fooled by the amnesty-granters on the Left who are simply looking for more people to force onto the federal dole. Hispanics are natural allies of conservatives; we just need more folks out there like Marco Rubio willing to stand up to the accusations of racism and explain why our philosophy fits the Hispanic creed the best.
But are there enough Republicans with the courage to speak and stand up to the inevitable onslaught of accusatory rhetoric from the mainstream media, the Democratic party, and the rest of the "professional" Left? Ah, there's the rub...
If The Democrats Still Ask "Why Do They Hate Us..."
...maybe they should listen to Hillary Clinton's remarks about the TSA's heavy-handed screening policy. It's not that your ideas and values aren't being communicated clearly enough, it's because they are:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says officials should try to make the new airport security measures, including full body scans and intimate pat-downs, less intrusive.
Clinton says there's clearly a need for the tighter security. But she says the government should explore ways to "to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance."
She says she understands "how offensive it must be" for some people to undergo the searches. She says there's a need to strike "the right balance" and to "get it better and less intrusive and more precise."
Would she submit to a pat-down? "Not if I could avoid it," Clinton says. "No. I mean, who would?"
Hillary's never had to suffer the indignity of a grope-down, and she never will. But never fear, she "understands" the way the common folk feel while the government is fondling their genitals, and she's on your side. Well, sort of. She has no say in the matter and no power over the agencies involved, but she "believes" the government should "explore" ways of "limiting" their sexual assaults - not ending them.
So what can be inferred here? Hillary is savvy enough politically to realize the American people are pissed about the TSA's causal molestation of women and children, so she's paying lip service to some sort of policy adjustments, even though there are currently no mechanisms underway to make those adjustments. And let's face it - she admittedly will never face the intrusiveness of the TSA security regime, and she's not an elected official who can be held responsible, so her minimalistic "I feel your pain" Bill Clinton-lite rhetoric is essentially meaningless.
And guess what? We, the American people, get the f*cking message, which is - to paraphrase an old headline: Federal Government to Citizens: Tough Sh*t, Lie Back And Enoy It.
Expect to read any day now about how Obama regrets the American people's "confusion" on the necessity of TSA grope-downs, as he promises to spend more time carefully explaining it to us in the future.
Save your breath, Mr. President. We get it, loud and clear...
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says officials should try to make the new airport security measures, including full body scans and intimate pat-downs, less intrusive.
Clinton says there's clearly a need for the tighter security. But she says the government should explore ways to "to limit the number of people who are going to be put through surveillance."
She says she understands "how offensive it must be" for some people to undergo the searches. She says there's a need to strike "the right balance" and to "get it better and less intrusive and more precise."
Would she submit to a pat-down? "Not if I could avoid it," Clinton says. "No. I mean, who would?"
Hillary's never had to suffer the indignity of a grope-down, and she never will. But never fear, she "understands" the way the common folk feel while the government is fondling their genitals, and she's on your side. Well, sort of. She has no say in the matter and no power over the agencies involved, but she "believes" the government should "explore" ways of "limiting" their sexual assaults - not ending them.
So what can be inferred here? Hillary is savvy enough politically to realize the American people are pissed about the TSA's causal molestation of women and children, so she's paying lip service to some sort of policy adjustments, even though there are currently no mechanisms underway to make those adjustments. And let's face it - she admittedly will never face the intrusiveness of the TSA security regime, and she's not an elected official who can be held responsible, so her minimalistic "I feel your pain" Bill Clinton-lite rhetoric is essentially meaningless.
And guess what? We, the American people, get the f*cking message, which is - to paraphrase an old headline: Federal Government to Citizens: Tough Sh*t, Lie Back And Enoy It.
Expect to read any day now about how Obama regrets the American people's "confusion" on the necessity of TSA grope-downs, as he promises to spend more time carefully explaining it to us in the future.
Save your breath, Mr. President. We get it, loud and clear...
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Liberalism As Ego-Gratification, And Little Else...
Via Instapundit, Ann Althouse hits square on the head the utter schizophrenic mentality it takes to embrace liberalism as practiced by the American left, or their political arm, the Democratic party. After hearing a fellow Madison professor describe the outcome of the 2010 midterms by sighing "I'm not endorsing the American voter....They're pretty damn stupid", Althouse holds her nose and dives deep into the liberal mindset:
Welcome to my world: Dane County, Wisconsin, home of people who tell themselves they are the smart people and those who disagree with them must certainly be dumb. They don't go through the exe
rcise of putting themselves in the place of someone who thinks differently from the way they do. But how would it feel to be intelligent, informed, and well-meaning and to think what conservatives think? Isn't that the right way for an intelligent, informed, and well-meaning person to understand other people? If you short circuit that process and go right to the assumption that people who don't agree with you are stupid, how do you maintain the belief that you are, in fact, intelligent, informed, and well-meaning?
What is liberal about this attitude toward other people? You wallow in self-love, and what is it you love yourself for? For wanting to shower benefits on people... that you have nothing but contempt for.
Because it is about liberals feeling good about themselves, regardless of the consequences for us. Believing the road to heaven (or secular immortality, in the form of a park bench dedicated to their memory) is paved with good intentions, they profess the best, and turn their back on the results, believing them to be secondary - by a mile - to their insatiable need to inflate their self-worth.
Thus, the greatest crimes of conservatives is not all the Hitler-esque evils they attribute to us, but the fact that we refuse to live for their ego gratification, and that we deny them the sense of self worth they so desperately need to fill their empty, shallow souls. That is why they hate us. And that is why, rather than look into their hearts and confess the obvious, they spin on us with festering rage but no facts, and are left with litte recourse but to sputter, with spittle flying, "You are just so...so...STUPID!!!"
To paraphrase Ayn Rand, those who spend their life searching for self-worth will never find it. Those who spend their lives seeking to show how smart they are will in fact, prove the opposite. To wit:
Welcome to my world: Dane County, Wisconsin, home of people who tell themselves they are the smart people and those who disagree with them must certainly be dumb. They don't go through the exe
rcise of putting themselves in the place of someone who thinks differently from the way they do. But how would it feel to be intelligent, informed, and well-meaning and to think what conservatives think? Isn't that the right way for an intelligent, informed, and well-meaning person to understand other people? If you short circuit that process and go right to the assumption that people who don't agree with you are stupid, how do you maintain the belief that you are, in fact, intelligent, informed, and well-meaning?What is liberal about this attitude toward other people? You wallow in self-love, and what is it you love yourself for? For wanting to shower benefits on people... that you have nothing but contempt for.
Because it is about liberals feeling good about themselves, regardless of the consequences for us. Believing the road to heaven (or secular immortality, in the form of a park bench dedicated to their memory) is paved with good intentions, they profess the best, and turn their back on the results, believing them to be secondary - by a mile - to their insatiable need to inflate their self-worth.
Thus, the greatest crimes of conservatives is not all the Hitler-esque evils they attribute to us, but the fact that we refuse to live for their ego gratification, and that we deny them the sense of self worth they so desperately need to fill their empty, shallow souls. That is why they hate us. And that is why, rather than look into their hearts and confess the obvious, they spin on us with festering rage but no facts, and are left with litte recourse but to sputter, with spittle flying, "You are just so...so...STUPID!!!"
To paraphrase Ayn Rand, those who spend their life searching for self-worth will never find it. Those who spend their lives seeking to show how smart they are will in fact, prove the opposite. To wit:
Chris Christie: "You May Have Gotten Used To...
...living by this double-standard, but that double standard doesn't exist anymore..."
That's The Governor, talking to the head of the New Jersey Education Association, aka The Union.
"...and I stood up and said 'Good day'...and she said "But...but...we have important issues to discuss!"
Christie's reply?
"Not with me, you don't"
Lesson: Don't wish for, or ask others to pray for, Chris Christie's death. It only gets him angrier...
Via Hot Air.
That's The Governor, talking to the head of the New Jersey Education Association, aka The Union.
"...and I stood up and said 'Good day'...and she said "But...but...we have important issues to discuss!"
Christie's reply?
"Not with me, you don't"
Lesson: Don't wish for, or ask others to pray for, Chris Christie's death. It only gets him angrier...
Via Hot Air.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Will The TSA Instigate A “Thanksgiving Revolution”?
Over at When Falls The Coliseum, Dan Sterlace makes an interesting observation:
Our soldiers in Afghanistan are not allowed to search women and children, despite the fact that they are repeatedly used to hide weapons. The TSA is authorized to pat down your daughter, meanwhile, even though you are a citizen of this country.
The government, reserving rights for itself that it denies soldiers facing death in the field. Interesting logic there. Are TSA agents more in harm's way than a Marine patrol in Afghanistan? Or is the government more concerned about the reactions of Afghanis, who are not subject to American law, than they are to actual Americans, who they view as mere...subjects?
Dan gets into that aspect of the government's limited legalization of sexual assault:
You pay your taxes, you may or may not vote, and you are rewarded by being guilty and having to prove yourself innocent when you try to board a plane that you paid to fly on. You are not a citizen. You are a subject.
So it begs the question: Has the government gone too far, when they declare for themselves the right to fondle every woman’s breasts and to massage her cooze, while stroking every man’s balls with the option of sticking a finger up his ass?
Well, the TSA has an answer for that:
John Pistole, formerly the number 2 person at the FBI, who now heads the TSA, said he preferred to educate the public rather than change procedures.
“Am I going to change the policies?” he said, according to AOL News. “No.”
You don’t like being sexually assaulted at airports? Sorry, you’re just not smart enough to understand how being raped is in your best interests. Best lie back and take it, and maybe even enjoy it, because if you fight back, we’re gonna f*ck you up real good…
Sounds like a certain president and his political party, who insists that our anger is misguided, and we’re just not smart enough to understand that socialized medicine is the best medicine, that trillion-dollar deficits are George Bush’s fault, and that if only we destroy what remains of our economy with cap and trade, the rest of the world will follow…
They want subjects. Not citizens. And so the fight is on:
So it all comes down a simple question: will we be citizens whose elected and appointed servants must obey us, or subjects of a self-aggrandizing behemoth that claims sovereignty over our very bodies?
To their great and lasting credit, the American people understand on a deep, even instinctive level that the TSA groping flap is about far more than either security or inconvenience. It is about fundamental liberty, about personal sovereignty, and about preserving our Constitutional rights as Americans. It is a battle that the American people must, and will, win.
Well, I’m not necessarily predicting a “Thanksgiving Revolution” (although I’m curious to see how many “opt out” in airports nationwide), as I do believe most people will prefer to get to their destination in time for a festive family meal, and leave the street-fighting for another day. Fair enough.
But I do believe that after tens of thousands of Americans get a firsthand "feel" next weekend of the government’s latest assumption of powers over their bodies, their may be even a greater vibration of anger and outrage in the air than existed on November 2nd.
And even those who may have heaped scorn and disdain upon the Tea Party might soon find themselves marching with their own “Don’t Tread on Me” banners, as they realize that subjection to the whims of government is not exactly all it’s cracked up to be, and there's something to be said for the place of the..."citizen", in the conduct of his own affairs, and body...
Friday, November 19, 2010
Why START must be STOPPED...
....I'm going to give only one good reason, and it has nothing to do with the contents of the treaty itself.
Now, I hate to sound like a Democratic politician, but there is no need to read the start treaty to know what's in it.
What's in it cannot be good for America, because all of a sudden, there is nothing more important to our national security, to our economy, and to our character as a nation than...passing this treaty.
Just like the stimulus had to be rammed through immediately to save the nation from an unemployment rate that might, without it, exceed 8%.
Just like cap and trade had to passed immediately, for without it, the oceans would rise as Antarctica melted while the seas boiled...by the end of this year, if I recollect. Not to mention all the international respect we would get.
Just like health care reform had to jammed through on a party-line vote, because without it, uninsured Americans would die in the streets like plague rates, and with it, the economy would recover instantly. Not to mention all the overseas respect we would get.
And now we have...START - from the administration's lackeys:
Gary Samore, the top White House arms-control official, said Thursday he feared that putting off the treaty until next year would mean it “could be delayed indefinitely.”
As a result, the United States and Russia would not resume nuclear inspections that lapsed last year, which he said would fuel distrust and lead to “a greater likelihood you could get into an arms race.”
He also said a failure to ratify the treaty would undercut Russian support for the campaign to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program....
So if we don't ratify START right away, the results of all the Democratic policy failures will be the fault of the Republicans? Pretty thin gruel, guys...
The AP threatens us, Soviet-style:
MOSCOW – Is the reset on the rocks?
Rumblings in Washington by the resurgent Republican Party against Senate ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty raise doubts about a fragile U.S.-Russian rapprochement — the "reset" that has been a centerpiece of President Obama's diplomacy.
An unraveling of ties, which hit post-Cold War lows during the administration of George W. Bush, would erode global stability at a time of burgeoning security threats and harm international efforts to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
"The failure to ratify the treaty will deal a very painful blow to Obama's administration and the policy of 'reset,'" said Sergei Rogov, head of the Moscow-based U.S.A. and Canada Institute, a top think-tank advising the government on foreign policy.
If "the administration can't deliver what it promised, it would seriously undermine Obama's position in the international arena."
The fact that this article - written by one Vladimir Isachenkov - blames Bush for standing up to the Russia Bear, praises the Democrat's "reset" policy(which has allowed Russia to run amok in Eastern Europe), and warns that Obama needs this treaty, pretty much gives you three reasons why, in fact, we should oppose START.
We've seen this bum's rush before, and it's usually when Barack Obama is trying to serve us a shit sandwich by jamming it down our throat while assuring us it's Kobe beef. If the treaty is strong enough to stand on it's own, I am sure that will come out after thoughtful deliberations and study. But the fact that Obama and the media are resorting once again to "the fierce urgency of now" can only lead one to believe that they feel that careful scrutiny will prove the START treaty to be unpalatable to the American people.
The Senate must stand firm and say no. For now...
Now, I hate to sound like a Democratic politician, but there is no need to read the start treaty to know what's in it.
What's in it cannot be good for America, because all of a sudden, there is nothing more important to our national security, to our economy, and to our character as a nation than...passing this treaty.
Just like the stimulus had to be rammed through immediately to save the nation from an unemployment rate that might, without it, exceed 8%.
Just like cap and trade had to passed immediately, for without it, the oceans would rise as Antarctica melted while the seas boiled...by the end of this year, if I recollect. Not to mention all the international respect we would get.
Just like health care reform had to jammed through on a party-line vote, because without it, uninsured Americans would die in the streets like plague rates, and with it, the economy would recover instantly. Not to mention all the overseas respect we would get.
And now we have...START - from the administration's lackeys:
Gary Samore, the top White House arms-control official, said Thursday he feared that putting off the treaty until next year would mean it “could be delayed indefinitely.”
As a result, the United States and Russia would not resume nuclear inspections that lapsed last year, which he said would fuel distrust and lead to “a greater likelihood you could get into an arms race.”
He also said a failure to ratify the treaty would undercut Russian support for the campaign to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program....
So if we don't ratify START right away, the results of all the Democratic policy failures will be the fault of the Republicans? Pretty thin gruel, guys...
The AP threatens us, Soviet-style:
MOSCOW – Is the reset on the rocks?
Rumblings in Washington by the resurgent Republican Party against Senate ratification of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty raise doubts about a fragile U.S.-Russian rapprochement — the "reset" that has been a centerpiece of President Obama's diplomacy.
An unraveling of ties, which hit post-Cold War lows during the administration of George W. Bush, would erode global stability at a time of burgeoning security threats and harm international efforts to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
"The failure to ratify the treaty will deal a very painful blow to Obama's administration and the policy of 'reset,'" said Sergei Rogov, head of the Moscow-based U.S.A. and Canada Institute, a top think-tank advising the government on foreign policy.
If "the administration can't deliver what it promised, it would seriously undermine Obama's position in the international arena."
The fact that this article - written by one Vladimir Isachenkov - blames Bush for standing up to the Russia Bear, praises the Democrat's "reset" policy(which has allowed Russia to run amok in Eastern Europe), and warns that Obama needs this treaty, pretty much gives you three reasons why, in fact, we should oppose START.
We've seen this bum's rush before, and it's usually when Barack Obama is trying to serve us a shit sandwich by jamming it down our throat while assuring us it's Kobe beef. If the treaty is strong enough to stand on it's own, I am sure that will come out after thoughtful deliberations and study. But the fact that Obama and the media are resorting once again to "the fierce urgency of now" can only lead one to believe that they feel that careful scrutiny will prove the START treaty to be unpalatable to the American people.
The Senate must stand firm and say no. For now...
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The GM IPO: A Taxpayer Screwjob
And when the government, and a government owned and operated entity is involved, you know the one bending over with a sigh, and getting ready to take it, are the taxpayers.
Listen to the euphoria:
General Motors is returning to life as a public company Thursday with a stock offering worth potentially $23 billion, ending the government's role as majority shareholder and closing a remarkable chapter in American corporate history.
The U.S. government should make about $13.6 billion when GM shares start trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The federal Treasury is unloading more than 400 million shares of GM, reducing its stake in the company from 61 percent to about 33 percent.
The IPO could wind up as the largest in history. GM set a price of $33 per common share on Wednesday, a day after it raised the number of shares it will offer to satisfy investor demand. When the U.S. government and other owners sell their shares, they'll raise $18.2 billion. GM will raise another $5 billion by selling 100 million preferred shares at $50 each.
Together, the sale of common and preferred stock will bring the deal's value to a record $23.2 billion.
Assuming all the shares are sold at the price set by GM (and the government), of course...
But you would think it's raining gold from the way the media has been breathlessly extolling the success of the "new GM", and the bailouts, using this IPO as a barometer. Unfortunately, our masters of the information gateway are leaving some important facts at the the doorstep:
In the stock offering, the government stands to make $13.6 billion if it sells 412 million shares, as planned, for $33 apiece. It will still have about 500 million shares, a one-third stake. It would have to sell those shares over the next two to three years at about $53 a share for taxpayers to come out even.
The total bailout was $50 billion. GM has already paid or agreed to pay back $9.5 billion. That comes from cash and payments related to preferred stock held by the government.
So let's review:
-taxpayers are still in the hole for $50 billion. Whatever GM has paid back was in the form of additional government loans used to pay off their debts, so they're stealing from our left pockets to fill our right. And "promises"? Please, don't insult me, OK?
-assuming all goes as planned and the market obeys Obama's orders, the taxpayers are still over $36 billion in the hole on this deal. The assumption above that the value is going to rise by almost 2/3rds in two years in a volatile economy with a real unemployment/underemployed rate of closer to 17% is a stretch - and that's me being polite. It's the kind of stretch that gets civilian bankers tossed in jail should they make such a recommendation to their clients. UNLESS...
-the government changes the rules, or gives GM additional funding, or by legislative fiat alters the playing field in the US automotive market in order to protect the politician's investment in GM. Can anyone say "crony capitalism"? Sure, overall it would wreck the majority of the American car industry, destroy us competitively abroad, and cost tens of thousands of jobs, but when have the facts gotten in the way of a liberal government?
-And finally, what will happen come 2012, when a Republican president and Congress decide they want nothing to do with "Government Motors", and either end the subsidies or decide to dump the shares? Either way, a major devaluation and a loss, again, to the American taxpayer.
Despite the media/politician cheerleading, this IPO is not any indication of GM's renaissance - it's yet another symptom in the disease that is socialism that is invading the American body politic. The failure of this IPO - and GM - would be the healthiest sign this economy can produce, in the long term.
Oh - and have you ever seen the media cheerleading a stock that has actually been a money-maker, or indiciative of a strong company/sector? Yeah, me neither. They're all johnny-come-latelys that use other people's money to buy high, and sell low.
Stay away from this POS IPO. And hold on tight to your wallet...
Listen to the euphoria:
General Motors is returning to life as a public company Thursday with a stock offering worth potentially $23 billion, ending the government's role as majority shareholder and closing a remarkable chapter in American corporate history.
The U.S. government should make about $13.6 billion when GM shares start trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The federal Treasury is unloading more than 400 million shares of GM, reducing its stake in the company from 61 percent to about 33 percent.
The IPO could wind up as the largest in history. GM set a price of $33 per common share on Wednesday, a day after it raised the number of shares it will offer to satisfy investor demand. When the U.S. government and other owners sell their shares, they'll raise $18.2 billion. GM will raise another $5 billion by selling 100 million preferred shares at $50 each.
Together, the sale of common and preferred stock will bring the deal's value to a record $23.2 billion.
Assuming all the shares are sold at the price set by GM (and the government), of course...
But you would think it's raining gold from the way the media has been breathlessly extolling the success of the "new GM", and the bailouts, using this IPO as a barometer. Unfortunately, our masters of the information gateway are leaving some important facts at the the doorstep:
In the stock offering, the government stands to make $13.6 billion if it sells 412 million shares, as planned, for $33 apiece. It will still have about 500 million shares, a one-third stake. It would have to sell those shares over the next two to three years at about $53 a share for taxpayers to come out even.
The total bailout was $50 billion. GM has already paid or agreed to pay back $9.5 billion. That comes from cash and payments related to preferred stock held by the government.
So let's review:
-taxpayers are still in the hole for $50 billion. Whatever GM has paid back was in the form of additional government loans used to pay off their debts, so they're stealing from our left pockets to fill our right. And "promises"? Please, don't insult me, OK?
-assuming all goes as planned and the market obeys Obama's orders, the taxpayers are still over $36 billion in the hole on this deal. The assumption above that the value is going to rise by almost 2/3rds in two years in a volatile economy with a real unemployment/underemployed rate of closer to 17% is a stretch - and that's me being polite. It's the kind of stretch that gets civilian bankers tossed in jail should they make such a recommendation to their clients. UNLESS...
-the government changes the rules, or gives GM additional funding, or by legislative fiat alters the playing field in the US automotive market in order to protect the politician's investment in GM. Can anyone say "crony capitalism"? Sure, overall it would wreck the majority of the American car industry, destroy us competitively abroad, and cost tens of thousands of jobs, but when have the facts gotten in the way of a liberal government?
-And finally, what will happen come 2012, when a Republican president and Congress decide they want nothing to do with "Government Motors", and either end the subsidies or decide to dump the shares? Either way, a major devaluation and a loss, again, to the American taxpayer.
Despite the media/politician cheerleading, this IPO is not any indication of GM's renaissance - it's yet another symptom in the disease that is socialism that is invading the American body politic. The failure of this IPO - and GM - would be the healthiest sign this economy can produce, in the long term.
Oh - and have you ever seen the media cheerleading a stock that has actually been a money-maker, or indiciative of a strong company/sector? Yeah, me neither. They're all johnny-come-latelys that use other people's money to buy high, and sell low.
Stay away from this POS IPO. And hold on tight to your wallet...
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Barack Obama: Narcissus Unhinged?
We posted yesterday on Sean Hannity's claims that Barack Obama had essentially become withdrawn into a world of NBA highlights and golf, while throwing tantrums and having meltdowns every time a piece of bad news is brought to him (Imagine if he had been president on 9/11....). This piece has been floating around for a while; it is similar to Hannity's in that it is also "unsourced" - the tales told are from "a close contact inside he White House" - and that the mood of the piece and description of Obama's increasingly erratic behavior is strikingly similar to Hannity's.
Some excerpts from a conversation with "A longtime Washington D.C. insider, and former advisor to the Obama election campaign and transition team":
He absolutely obsesses over Fox News. For being so successful, Barack Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. He takes everything very personally.
Obama chose Biden for one reason – to have an older white guy with some international policy credentials. Period....Give Joe a job and get him the hell out of my hair – that pretty much sums up the president’s feelings toward Joe Biden.
What about Hillary Clinton? Obama is scared to death of Hillary. He doesn’t trust her – obsesses over her almost as much as he does Fox News.
I’ll tell you this – if you want to see President Obama get excited about a conversation, turn it to sports. That gets him interested. You start talking about Congress, or some policy, and he just kinda turns off. It’s really very strange. I mean, we were all led to believe that this guy was some kind of intellectual giant, right? Ivy League and all that. Well, that is not what I saw. Barack Obama doesn’t have a whole lot of intellectual curiosity. When he is off script, he is what I call a real “slow talker”. Lots of ummms, and lots of time in between answers where you can almost see the little wheel in his head turning very slowly. I am not going to say the president is a dumb man, because he is not, but yeah, there was a definite letdown when you actually hear him talking without the script.
That sounds like you are calling Obama stupid to me. No – I am not going to call him stupid. He just doesn’t strike me as particularly smart.
As bad as it might look to voters based on what they do know, it’s much worse. The infighting is off the charts. You got a Chief of Staff who despises cabinet members, advisors who despise the Chief of Staff, a President and First Lady having their own issues…
Come again – what about the First Lady? (The insider takes a deep breath) Ok, look, just like any other marriage, folks have issues. The Obamas are no different, except of course they are very high profile. I was told they were having issues before the campaign, and they have even more issues now....
I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it. I don’t mean he is like losing his mind. I mean to say that he is losing whatever spark he had during the campaign. When you take away the crowds, Obama gets noticeably smaller. He shrinks up inside of himself. He just doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do the job of President, and it’s getting worse and worse. Case in point – just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days....
Seems similar to what Hannity is saying. And as I have stated here often enough before, the Jerseynut does not believe in coincidences. Unless, of course, Hannity's "insider" at the White House is this same insider, or if Hannity simply read the same report here and spoke of it as if it were his own.
But what are we to do if these stories are true? A president, too stubborn and childish to change his mindset, becoming slowly but surely unhinged as his pet policies fail him, his "superior intellect" proves unworthy to the challenge, with a wife who is apparently contemplating leaving him.
Do we have any recourse? Or are we doomed to watch the Republic burn at the hands of the ultimate man-child, a liberal who -denying reality to the end - would rather perish and bring a nation down with him than admit that he was wrong about the nature of the universe?
The times are troublesome enough, without having a man on the verge of an emotional and psychological breakdown at the helm...
Some excerpts from a conversation with "A longtime Washington D.C. insider, and former advisor to the Obama election campaign and transition team":
He absolutely obsesses over Fox News. For being so successful, Barack Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. He takes everything very personally.
Obama chose Biden for one reason – to have an older white guy with some international policy credentials. Period....Give Joe a job and get him the hell out of my hair – that pretty much sums up the president’s feelings toward Joe Biden.
What about Hillary Clinton? Obama is scared to death of Hillary. He doesn’t trust her – obsesses over her almost as much as he does Fox News.
I’ll tell you this – if you want to see President Obama get excited about a conversation, turn it to sports. That gets him interested. You start talking about Congress, or some policy, and he just kinda turns off. It’s really very strange. I mean, we were all led to believe that this guy was some kind of intellectual giant, right? Ivy League and all that. Well, that is not what I saw. Barack Obama doesn’t have a whole lot of intellectual curiosity. When he is off script, he is what I call a real “slow talker”. Lots of ummms, and lots of time in between answers where you can almost see the little wheel in his head turning very slowly. I am not going to say the president is a dumb man, because he is not, but yeah, there was a definite letdown when you actually hear him talking without the script.
That sounds like you are calling Obama stupid to me. No – I am not going to call him stupid. He just doesn’t strike me as particularly smart.
As bad as it might look to voters based on what they do know, it’s much worse. The infighting is off the charts. You got a Chief of Staff who despises cabinet members, advisors who despise the Chief of Staff, a President and First Lady having their own issues…
Come again – what about the First Lady? (The insider takes a deep breath) Ok, look, just like any other marriage, folks have issues. The Obamas are no different, except of course they are very high profile. I was told they were having issues before the campaign, and they have even more issues now....
I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it. I don’t mean he is like losing his mind. I mean to say that he is losing whatever spark he had during the campaign. When you take away the crowds, Obama gets noticeably smaller. He shrinks up inside of himself. He just doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do the job of President, and it’s getting worse and worse. Case in point – just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days....
Seems similar to what Hannity is saying. And as I have stated here often enough before, the Jerseynut does not believe in coincidences. Unless, of course, Hannity's "insider" at the White House is this same insider, or if Hannity simply read the same report here and spoke of it as if it were his own.
But what are we to do if these stories are true? A president, too stubborn and childish to change his mindset, becoming slowly but surely unhinged as his pet policies fail him, his "superior intellect" proves unworthy to the challenge, with a wife who is apparently contemplating leaving him.
Do we have any recourse? Or are we doomed to watch the Republic burn at the hands of the ultimate man-child, a liberal who -denying reality to the end - would rather perish and bring a nation down with him than admit that he was wrong about the nature of the universe?
The times are troublesome enough, without having a man on the verge of an emotional and psychological breakdown at the helm...
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Holy Narcissus, Batman!
...yes, Barack Obama's self-absorption reaches such levels that a ridiculous Robin (as in The Boy Wonder) exclamation is required. Although Holy heart failure, Batman! may also fit the bill (after seeing this video), I think we can also go with a quote directly from the Batman - This is torture, at its most bizarre and terrible....
Well, as the person who put together this 1:59 piece says, You would think President Obama's jobs speech would be about the American people and reviving the economy. Think again...
I'll give you the totals, but you need to watch it to grasp the dimension of the narcissistic horror here...you'll hear the president mention “taxpayers” once, “small business” 8 times, and himself....132 times:
Well, as the person who put together this 1:59 piece says, You would think President Obama's jobs speech would be about the American people and reviving the economy. Think again...
I'll give you the totals, but you need to watch it to grasp the dimension of the narcissistic horror here...you'll hear the president mention “taxpayers” once, “small business” 8 times, and himself....132 times:
Has Obama Become...Unhinged?
Sounds like a movie - what would happen if an American president, viewed as godlike by his most loyal followers, suffered some sort of psychological breakdown while in office? Protected by the palace guards, what kind of havoc could be wreaked?
Well, we're there. Leave it to the Democrats...Sean Hannity, on his radio show yesterday:
“There are some Democrats that cue me into things. I got to tell you that the feeling among some people in the White House is that this president is unhinged, that he’s detached, that he’s losing it, he’s obsessed with critics, very specifically obsessed with Fox News, he can’t stand Biden, he hates the Clintons, the Clintons hate him. That the only thing he is passionate about seems to be ESPN and playing golf and and playing some basketball, the only thing that gets his interest.
Infighting apparently, and finger pointing is at an all-time high, if the President is brought bad news on the economy he has a meltdown every time he hears it. And this is what people — and I’m telling you my sources are reliable — are telling me. And I don’t know how he’s going to deal with this a story, ‘One and done, to be a great president President Obama should not seek re-election in 2012′.”
There's more stories like this out there, that I haven't posted on because (like the one above) they are "unsourced". But when a trickle becomes a stream, and a stream becomes a river, well...time to start paying attention to where the flood line is....
And could somebody - perhaps while the president is watching some NBA action - slip away with the nuclear briefcase and stow it in a more secure location? I have the feeling that I wouldn't be the only one sleeping better at night...
Need more evidence of Barack Obama's growing detachment from reality? Note his comments to the press after returning from his disastrous Asian adventure:
When asked about his meeting with GOP leaders later this week, Obama said: “They are flush with victory after a campaign of just saying ‘No.’ But I’m sure the American people did not vote for more gridlock.”
Oh boy....
Well, we're there. Leave it to the Democrats...Sean Hannity, on his radio show yesterday:
“There are some Democrats that cue me into things. I got to tell you that the feeling among some people in the White House is that this president is unhinged, that he’s detached, that he’s losing it, he’s obsessed with critics, very specifically obsessed with Fox News, he can’t stand Biden, he hates the Clintons, the Clintons hate him. That the only thing he is passionate about seems to be ESPN and playing golf and and playing some basketball, the only thing that gets his interest.
Infighting apparently, and finger pointing is at an all-time high, if the President is brought bad news on the economy he has a meltdown every time he hears it. And this is what people — and I’m telling you my sources are reliable — are telling me. And I don’t know how he’s going to deal with this a story, ‘One and done, to be a great president President Obama should not seek re-election in 2012′.”
There's more stories like this out there, that I haven't posted on because (like the one above) they are "unsourced". But when a trickle becomes a stream, and a stream becomes a river, well...time to start paying attention to where the flood line is....
And could somebody - perhaps while the president is watching some NBA action - slip away with the nuclear briefcase and stow it in a more secure location? I have the feeling that I wouldn't be the only one sleeping better at night...
Need more evidence of Barack Obama's growing detachment from reality? Note his comments to the press after returning from his disastrous Asian adventure:
When asked about his meeting with GOP leaders later this week, Obama said: “They are flush with victory after a campaign of just saying ‘No.’ But I’m sure the American people did not vote for more gridlock.”
Oh boy....
Monday, November 15, 2010
Signs Of Economic Armageddon
I see a lot of stories like these; nobody ever really seems to try to tie them together, except a few economic bloggers, of which I am not.
Bit when I come across two back-to-back, well....the JerseyNut does not believe in coincidences. Via Forbes:
Here’s why Cisco Systems’ bad financial news last week should (maybe) scare the hell out of you.
First, in case you missed it, here are the details of the announcement. On Thursday, Cisco stunned both the tech world and the stock market when it cut its sales forecast for the second quarter in a row. Worse, chairman and CEO John Chambers said that the company’s current situation is the result of outside forces beyond the company’s control – in particular, declining orders from cable companies and government agencies.
Anyone who knows the history of tech – especially if they were journalists in early 2001 – must have shuddered with a sense of déjà vu....
And flying well under the radar is this little report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York:
New York state manufacturing unexpectedly plunged in November, the first contraction since July 2009 when the US economy exited recession, official data showed Monday.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported its manufacturing activity index dropped to minus 11.1 points in November, from a positive 15.7 points in the previous month.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey index is considered a bellwether of the manufacturing sector which has been a key strength in the economic recovery.
The sharp 27-point decline surprised analysts, who had forecast on average a slip to a positive 11.7-point reading.
The new orders index plummeted to minus 24.4 points, from positive 12.9 points in October.
Well, at least AFP used the right terminology - these figures are not a "decline", they are a "plunge" and/or a "plummet". Familiar terms to the folks who lost part of the $24 billion in Cisco's market value that vanished overnight after they cut their forecast...
So a tech giant is crashing. Manufacturing activity is grinding to a virtual halt. And the government is printing hundreds of billions of dollars in an attempt to spur inflation!
No, that's not your imagination, that is in fact the ground shaking under your feet. Again - I'm not an economist, and I'm not trying to be a prophet of doom, either, but you don't have to be a weatherman (or a Cassandra) to see the perfect storm coming over the horizon...
Bit when I come across two back-to-back, well....the JerseyNut does not believe in coincidences. Via Forbes:
Here’s why Cisco Systems’ bad financial news last week should (maybe) scare the hell out of you.
First, in case you missed it, here are the details of the announcement. On Thursday, Cisco stunned both the tech world and the stock market when it cut its sales forecast for the second quarter in a row. Worse, chairman and CEO John Chambers said that the company’s current situation is the result of outside forces beyond the company’s control – in particular, declining orders from cable companies and government agencies.
Anyone who knows the history of tech – especially if they were journalists in early 2001 – must have shuddered with a sense of déjà vu....
And flying well under the radar is this little report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York:
New York state manufacturing unexpectedly plunged in November, the first contraction since July 2009 when the US economy exited recession, official data showed Monday.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported its manufacturing activity index dropped to minus 11.1 points in November, from a positive 15.7 points in the previous month.
The Empire State Manufacturing Survey index is considered a bellwether of the manufacturing sector which has been a key strength in the economic recovery.
The sharp 27-point decline surprised analysts, who had forecast on average a slip to a positive 11.7-point reading.
The new orders index plummeted to minus 24.4 points, from positive 12.9 points in October.
Well, at least AFP used the right terminology - these figures are not a "decline", they are a "plunge" and/or a "plummet". Familiar terms to the folks who lost part of the $24 billion in Cisco's market value that vanished overnight after they cut their forecast...
So a tech giant is crashing. Manufacturing activity is grinding to a virtual halt. And the government is printing hundreds of billions of dollars in an attempt to spur inflation!
No, that's not your imagination, that is in fact the ground shaking under your feet. Again - I'm not an economist, and I'm not trying to be a prophet of doom, either, but you don't have to be a weatherman (or a Cassandra) to see the perfect storm coming over the horizon...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)