Thursday, June 30, 2011

Muslims Now Offended By Sharia-Compliant Minny Mouse

Do these people even know what they are angry about?  Via Anorak:

One of Egypt's richest men has been accused of mocking Islam after tweeting cartoons of Mickey and Minnie Mouse wearing conservative Muslim attire.

Telecoms mogul and Coptic Christian Naguib Sawiris apologised for re-posting the images on Twitter a few days ago, saying he meant no offence.

But several Islamic lawyers have filed a formal complaint and there are calls for a boycott of his businesses.....tens of thousands of people have joined groups on Facebook and other social media condemning him.

"There's a fine line between expressing your opinion/freedom of speech and being flat out disrespectful," said one woman.

Shares in Mr Sawiris' telecoms company, Orascom - Egypt's largest private employer - have already fallen as a result of the row and subsequent calls for a boycott.

The prosecutor general's office said a group of Salafist Muslim lawyers had filed a complaint accusing Mr Sawiris of religious contempt.

"How can a man like this make fun of Muslims, in a country on the brink of sectarian discord," Muslim cleric Mazen el-Sersawi said in a television interview.

"If this is just joking, why don't you depict Mickey Mouse as a monk or a nun?"

Well, I couldn't find Micky Mouse dressed as a priest, but I found a bishop dressed as Mickey Mouse:

As far a being a nun, well, Mickey Mouse is a boy, and so....well, I suppose I understand the confusion, what with sharia-compliant women dressed essentially in sacks, but trust me, my Egyptian friends, male mice do not wear nun's attire.

But to get back to my original point...isn't the image of the dhimmi Minnie deferential towards Islam, as it subjugates her to it's 12th century attitude towards women?  Is this image not an example of religious respect, as opposed to contempt?  What they hell is there to be angry about?  Are the people of Islam so beaten into submission that they will anger simply when told to do so, even when it completely defies even the most basic logical premises?

And why do we pay these people any mind whatsoever?

The Obama Press Conference: A President On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown?

Yuval Levin on Barack Obama's disastrous press conference yesterday, the one that led erstwhile lover Mark Halprin to call him a "dick":

The President came before reporters without any news to make. He seemed to want to vent a kind of unfocused rage at Congress for something—criticizing congressional leaders at various points for taking too many breaks, for failing to take up patent reforms and free trade legislation, and generally ignoring the fiscal crisis (all of which, we can only assume, were criticisms of Democratic leaders). And when he turned to Republicans, he argued that they were not making serious proposals in the debt-limit talks. They were failing to lead, he said repeatedly.

It all had the feel of a childish tantrum by a person who desperately wishes he were living in a different reality—one in which he is the heroic man of action and his opponents are irresponsible and weak. But the fact is, the president and congressional Democrats have so far utterly failed to offer any path out of our fiscal problems—problems that they have greatly exacerbated....

But overarching all of this there seemed to be a deep rage against the realities of the moment he has found himself in, and the part he has found himself playing in that moment.

Now let's go to the whispers of a White House insider back in November, who claimed even back then that the president was "losing it":

I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it...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....

Sean Hannity, around the same time:

“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."

"Narcissus Unhinged", indeed.  Was the bizarre press conference yesterday the first outward sign that our cerebral, cool-as-a-cucumber president is beginning to crack under pressure?  Is he so intellectually inflexible - an ideological brother to a religious zealot - that upon seeing the inefficiency of his long-held socioeconomic theories, he crawls into a corner, beats his fists and shrieks in rage and despair rather than attempt to think his way out of the box?

After long years spent worrying about a madman with his finger on the button, it turns out our nightmares have borne fruit.  Alas, our madman is not a Mullah or a tyrant, but a deranged Democrat, who may well destroy us all rather than admit his pet theories are failures...

Obama's Fundraising Fail

Via White House Dossier, we get a copy of an email Barack Obama sent out to his increasingly nervous campaign supporters:

We’re closing the books on the first fundraising quarter of the 2012 race at midnight tomorrow.

A lot of folks will be interpreting our numbers as a measure of this campaign’s support.

They’re not wrong, but they are wrong about why.

We measure our success not in dollars but in people — in the number of everyday Americans who’ve chosen to give whatever they can afford because they know we’ve got more work to do.

Just another case of Obama changing the metrics of success in order to claim victory?

Too bad his campaign put forth loud and clear that they expected to raise a cool $1 billion for the re-election campaign, including shakedown money, fraudulent credit card transactions, and illegal overseas contributions. While the media likely will not report on any of the failings of the Obama campaign machine, a sharp drop in fundraising prowess will certainly embolden his adversaries. retrospect, maybe it might not have been too smart for Barack Obama and the Democrats to alienate the entire Jewish community after all...

UPDATE 12:12PM - And the headlines are in!

Romney’s Fundraising Comes Up Short

Would you like some smoke with those mirrors, gentlemen?

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The Obama Press Conference: Someone Left The Gaffe-O-Matic on High...

...because the stupidity flowing forth from The One seemed to reach new heights this morning:

President Obama called on Congressional Republicans to raise taxes on “corporate-jet owners” to decrease the deficit in a press conference at the White House this morning.

Yeah, I'm sure that's make a huge dent.  Like throwing a rock at the Death Star.  But the stupid goes way deeper than that:

Just a few months after lawmakers scolded auto executives for flying to Washington in private jets, Congress approved a tax break in the stimulus package to help businesses buy their own planes.

The incentive - first used to help plane makers recover from the 2001 terror attacks - sharply reduces the upfront tax bill for companies who buy assets such as business planes.

So I guess Barack forgot he was the one who offered that tax break to billionaires to begin with in his stimulus package. Either that, or he thinks the economy is in recovery mode, and doesn't need the help.

Then he turned the Gaffe-O-Matic up to...11:

Citing former GOP senators Alan Simpson and Pete Domenici, Obama insisted that “every single observer . . . who’s not a politician says we can’t reduce our deficit in the scale or scope that we need to without having a balanced approach that looks at everything.”

Really? Let's ask Ben Bernake - or better yet, let's allow Democrat Gerry Connolly to ask himself, and expose himself for the fool he is:

And the dumb-beat goes on - via Legal Insurrection:

He had the audacity to say with a straight face that his administration is trying to remove burdensome regulations, when in fact Obamacare and Dodd-Frank alone impose vast regulations (most of which have not been written yet, which freezes business investment) on virtually every area of the economy.

And then, in typical Obama fashion, he whined like a little bitch about it:

Later, the president, who stressed he would revise any cumbersome regulations, flashed his frustration with the business community’s complaints about red tape. “The business community is always complaining about regulations,” he sighed. “Because frankly they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits.”

Apparently, the president doesn't understand how profit-taking relates to job-making.  At this point, the Gaffe-O-Matic exploded, leaving confused handlers waving their arms and shouting, "this press conference is over!"

I'm sure the media won't report much on this latest show of illogic, ineptitude, inconsistency, and overall....flakiness by Barack Obama.  After all, there are stories about Michele Bachmann to file...

Why Michele Bachmann Can Win It All....

Matthew Continetti, subbing for Jen Rubin at Right Turn, quotes Jeffery Bell on why a more right-wing Republican can (and should) emerge from the primary and take it all in November 2012:

"... [T]he road to the next cycle of Republican success might be a more ideologically comprehensive and radical one, the road of Reagan rather than of Nixon or the Bushes. In a context of increased political polarization, [the] emergence of a more integrated and consistent Republican agenda, far more militant on economic and social issues, would be no great surprise—particularly in the wake of the analogous Democratic transition from the strategically eclectic, tactically nimble 'triangulation' of Bill Clinton to the ideologically consistent left agenda of post-Clinton candidates like Howard Dean and Barack Obama."

Continetti comments:

If Bell is right, then Washington's conventional understanding of the Republican party is way off the mark. Since President Obama's election, conventional opinion has held that the GOP will have to "moderate" if it wants to win. The opposite has happened, of course: The GOP has become more ideological on economic issues. And 2010 was one of the Republican Party's best cycles in decades.

The only question remains the role of the media in the 2012 election.  As their relevance continues to diminish, their ideological fervor has risen, and they see - perhaps more clearly than most of the establishment  - the threat that Michele Bachmann represents.  Hence the swinging of the guns away from Mitt, Tim, and even to a certain extent, Sarah (abashed, perhaps, by The Great Email Fiasco?) and the turning of all fire upon Michele.  Obama's horrible miscues, brutal economic record, and insanely corrupt administration are simply ignored while layers of sweating newsroom fops pore over Bachmann's every word looking for a hint of a faux pas that can be used to discredit her and reinforce the "flake" memo going around the media.  I've noticed too that even internet seach engines such as Bing and Yahoo flood us with negative headlines on Bachmann, going so far as to cite leftist bloggers as "news" as they post their screaming headlines on the top of the pile...

                   Media asks: Is Michele Bachmann a nut, or a slut?

How successful will it be?  Well, it destroyed Sarah Palin, but no one was prepared for the ferocity of that particular attack.  Michele has been forewarned, both by past events and by current media (think George Stephanopulous foreshadowing the investigation of her foster children), of the volley that is coming.  Her ability to win, and fulfill the prophecy above, is dependant on her smarts and savvy.  If she can see the shots coming, and duck them, and dodge them, and return fire in an effective manner, she can come out of the primaries unwounded, and be ready to present a fair case to the American people.

Barack Obama, when asked about his qualification while on the 2008 campaign trail, pointed to the fact that he was running a campaign as evidence enough of his capacity to lead the nation.  If Michele Bachmann can get past the unthinking, drooling hatred of the media mob, she will have already presented a better case for the presidency than Barack Obama ever did...

Obama to negotiate the debt ceiling through the media?

It's the time-tested ploy of the professional athlete at the end of his contract and looking for a big payday...bring your case and demands (all quite reasonable, of course) to the sports media, where you can talk directly to the fans, push the ownership into a corner, and get some positive coverage from writers looking to get the next big quote.

Apparently, Barack Obama is going the same route as he butts heads with Congressional Republicans on the debt ceiling:

President Barack Obama scheduled a news conference for late Wednesday morning, his first formal question-and-answer session since high-stakes debt and budget negotiations began.

Obama was expected to open with comments about spurring the economy and job growth, and touch on the deficit talks that have occupied Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders over the past several weeks.

Obama’s last full-blown news conference was in March...Obama has been stepping up his promotion of job creation initiatives amid evidence that the state of the economy has weakened his job approval standing with the public. Obama, no doubt, will also have to address the status of negotiations with Congress over long-term deficit reduction and an increase in the nation’s borrowing limit.

Looks as if Obama, who has been ducking the media for over three months, believes he can use them as a weapon against Republicans, assured they will carry his message - which will consist of demonizing conservatives while asking for just "a little more time' to turn the economy around (what, you expected a plan? Please...) - to the American people essentially verbatim.

And maybe he's right. But the problem with negotiating through the media, as many of the aforementioned athletes can tell you, is that sometimes instead of making ownership more pliable, it instead forces them to dig their heels in, out of either emotional resentment or as a long-term business strategy (if it succeeds once, you can bet it will be repeated).

And since the Republicans hold the House, and they are under limited contract to the American people based on their ability to perform to their specifications, well...I wouldn't be surprised to see this tactic backfire.  Both parties have way to much to lose if they fold to a media-generated dog and pony show at this critical juncture... 

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Sarah Palin Loves The Jews More Than The Jews Love Themselves

I happened to see this picture in the elevator today, as Captivate was using it to illustrate a "Sarah Palin Goes To Iowa" headline.  It appears to be a few weeks old, but it is interesting nevertheless:

Yeah, that's a big honking Star of David around her neck.  How many other presidential candidates (or non-candidate political figures) will be seen showing that type of solidarity with the Jewish people?  Even better - how many Jews these days display their own heritage so proudly?  I can tell you, even living and working in the heart of American Jew-dom, I can say...very, very few.

Were it any other type of religious or ethnic symbol, that group would swoon, and even if they did not support her political positions, would openly appreciate the show of respect and love.

Not us Jews, though.  We are too damn smart.  You see, we know someone who loves us so must be not just firmly rejected, but hated, with an outspoken vigor to match that of the most liberal Democrat and/or anti-Semite (as if there is a difference).

Jennifer Rubin, in her waning days at Commentary back in early  2010, wrote at length about the Palin/Jew disconnect:  Some highlights:

For her detractors, both conservative and liberal, she is uncouth, unschooled, a hick, anti-science and anti-intellectual, an upstart, and a religious fanatic. There is no group so firmly in the latter camp as American Jews....

Palin calls herself a “hockey mom” and brags aloud about the athletic prowess of her children, while Jews are more likely to sport “My child Is an Honor Student” bumper stickers. Palin’s oldest, Track, has joined the military, while many Jews lack a family military tradition. Not for the Palins the quiet pride in good grades and good boards; the family’s esteem is tied up more in Sarah’s husband Todd Palin’s “iron dog” snowmobile racing skills.

And, of course, there is Palin’s youngest. Pro-life Americans saw Palin’s son Trig, born with Down syndrome in April 2008, as an affirmation of Palin’s deeply held beliefs, a rare instance in which a politician did more than mouth platitudes about a “culture of life.” But in affluent communities with large Jewish populations, Down-syndrome children are now largely absent due to the widespread use of diagnostic testing and “genetics counseling.” Trig was not a selling point with many Jewish women who couldn’t imagine making a similar choice—indeed, many have, in fact, made the opposite one.

And there is the matter of social class. As she recounts in Going Rogue, Palin and her husband had labored at jobs most professional and upper-middle-class Jews would never dream of holding—waitressing, picking “strawberries in the mud and mosquitoes?.?.?.?for five cents flat,” sweeping parking lots, and many “messy, obscure seafood jobs, including long shifts on a stinky shore-based crab-processing vessel.” Her populist appeal and identification with working-class voters are rooted in a life experience that is removed by one or two generations from the lives of most American Jews. Her life is what they were expected to rise above....

But despite Sarah's own "disconnect" from Jewish life, and the land of Israel, she staunchly supports them both, because it is the right thing to do -  the Jews are in danger of being engulfed in a virulent anti-Semitism like nothing seen since the 1930's, and that same perfect storm is hell-bent on handing over Israel to barbarians who have vowed to push every last Jewish man, women, and child into the sea.

The Jews are in a foxhole right now, even though we delude ourselves, like we did in the 1930's, that it is all just talk, that nothing will come of it, even as our hero Barack Hussein Obama demands that we start their negotiations with the Palestinians with their heels in the Mediterranean.

And when a voice rises in the wilderness to defend us, we spit in her general direction, because she is so dissimilar to us, and we can't be troubled to take the time to think thru the differences. Better to be in the foxhole to face the charging hordes alone. Better to react with hatred, so that Palin's enemies - and they are legion - perhaps will see that the Jews are on their side after all!  Too bad, of course, that the mass of the Palin-haters could also slide easily into the Jew-haters camp without even a change of their hats...

And what the Jews don't realize is that when others see us ripping one of our staunchest defenders, it inhibits them from defending us, silencing perhaps astute voices that might rise to our cause. And it gives courage to our enemies, when they see that we are as willing to be led to our own self-immolation as they are to lead us there.  How can one argue that Jews deserve to live in peace when we fight to silence the voices that speak for us the loudest?

Should there be a Second Holocaust - and that's a 50/50 proposition at least, if not better - Jews cannot wail to the sky and ask why God has brought such vengeance upon them.

By siding with their enemies, they have brought it upon themselves.

And for the critics calling Sarah Palin a suck-up and a show-off, be aware that this is not the first time she's worn the Star of David proudly:

She's with us.  Are we?

Obama Wants 56 MPG Cars? Why Not Flying Carpets?

I suppose this falls under the old saw of "liberals want what they want, reality be damned", but this flight of fantasy is just a bit too much, and may destroy what's left of Detroit and the economy along with it.  The Detroit Free Press reports:

The White House is ramping up its discussions with automakers and elected officials regarding fuel economy standards for 2017-25, and informed the Detroit Three that the government is considering boosting those requirements to 56 miles per gallon by 2025.

Why not 75? Why not just demand mass-production of the winged Pegasus, flying ET-style bicycles, and just to be multi-cultural, some Arabian-style flying carpets? The Left wants what it wants, to paraphrase a certain perverted producer, and reality is just an intrusion upon their own warped fantasies.

Of course, since we are dealing with the Obama Administration, a certain amount of duplicity is involved:

According to three sources familiar with the matter, White House officials began meeting with several members of Michigan's congressional delegation Tuesday, but did not reveal specifics on any target number they were considering.

On Wednesday, however, mid-level administration officials held separate meetings in Washington with Detroit's automakers -- during which they floated the figure of 56 m.p.g. Leaders of the UAW also were separately briefed on the matter.

...which pissed off a certain high-powered Democrat:

On Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., unexpectedly broached the issue during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing -- venting his frustration with Cass Sunstein, a regulatory administrator with the Office of Management and Budget.

"My questions to Cass Sunstein on Thursday were prompted by my surprise to learn that the administration had decided to lay down a scenario for regulation of vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions after telling us just the day before that no 'decision' had been made relative to those issues," Levin said in a statement. "While the administration's statement was technically accurate that no final decision has been made, I was surprised to find that they obviously had made a 'decision' -- to suggest a numerical scenario the very next day."

The White House would not comment specifically on whether administration officials had raised the prospect of 56 m.p.g. Spokesman Matt Lehrich said "no decision has yet been made yet, but our goal remains to propose the rule this September.

"No decision has been made" means "a decision has been made" in Obama-speak, and even our jilted Democratic Senator knows that. They quite blithely lied to him, of course, knowing he would object upfront, while being well aware that he will do very little to stop them besides fume and fester.

Will this miracle by government fiat be free? Via Ricochet:

The fuel efficiency technology also drives the cost of vehicles upward at a rapid rate. And with this utterly soviet standard, the increase will be astronomical. A study put out by the National Research Council last year estimated that a full hybrid vehicle could cut fuel use by about 50 percent -- but that it would drive the vehicle's price up by about $9,000. That may sound like a world in which we're all taking out second mortgages to drive a Prius, but keep this in mind: even that most iconic of hybrids (average of 50 MPG) doesn’t meet the administration’s proposed standards. And focusing on the retail price also doesn’t factor in the safety risks that often accompany more fuel-efficient cars (the efficiency is often achieved in part by creating a lighter – and thus more brittle – auto body).

And speaking of safety, I'll bet you fee much safer already, knowing that your new car will no longer contain a spare tire - all in the name of "efficiency", of course:

That spare tire in your trunk may be going the way of the typewriter and transistor radio.
Automakers are selling more cars without an extra wheel to trim weight, boost gas mileage and shave a few bucks off their costs.

But last month, about 13% of the more than 1 million vehicles sold in the U.S. did not offer an extra tire as standard equipment, according to a Los Angeles Times review of vehicle specifications and sales data.

And here's the kicker:

Spare tires are not required by federal regulators because they are not considered an essential safety feature.

That's Soviet-style "efficiency", folks. "Smart Government", and the such.  While Obama and Lisa Jackson laud themselves for implementing regulations inconsistent with reality, your wives, daughters, and girlfriends will be driving around without a spare tire, the most basic of automotive fixes.

Will Obama and Lisa pat themselves on the back for adding even more innocent American bodies to the trail of the dead their policies leave behind?

Maybe not, but they won't feel a shred of guilt about the death of your kid sister on the side of the road, either, because their intentions were good, don't you know....

Monday, June 27, 2011

How Can We Defeat Socialism? With One Word...

Victor Davis Hanson boils the tragicomic socioeconomic system down to one human frailty: Ego gratification.

So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves....

Who are socialists?

There are none. Only technocratic overseers who wish to give someone else’s money to others as a means of winning capitalist-style lifestyles and power for themselves — in a penultimate cycle of unsustainable spending.

But how do the unrestrained egotists that represent the "socialist class" manage to convince the rest of us to go along with a system that will eventually destroy everybody?  Is it...guilt?

...expectations for far more always keep rising, with a commensurate plethora of new justifications, usually in the realm of someone else having more than the recipient, always unjustly so. The endangered aid recipient is always seen as being pushed off a cliff in a wheel chair — therefore, “they” can afford to give “me” more; things are not “fair”; there is no “equality.”

What did Ayn Rand say about this?  Oh, a lot, actually, as the quote below from Rand is essentially the basis of Atlas Shrugged, and is given as the reason for the Fall of Man:

The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt

There is more along the same vein from Atlas Shrugged:

Evil requires the sanction of the victim.

I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence.

And Mr. Galt himself:

"We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt."

 And this final one, of course, which strikes fear in the heart of techno-socialists everywhere - should it be realized, the Ponzi scheme is over. Which is why the Democrats, incidentally, have nothing left but baseless accusations of racism and shriller and shriller attempts at fear-mongering, mixed with a dash of fear tactics instilled from their enforcers in the unions:

…guilt is a rope that wears thin...

And the Socialists know it. They are already fighting against it, but - to quote a certain orator - we are the ones we have been waiting for. Only we can cut the ropes the Left have bound us with, and free ourselves from our self-imposed slavery to them.  And all we have to do is stand up an declare "We are not guilty..."

Sunday, June 26, 2011

"...the dance of the low-sloping foreheads...."

A racist remark by a teabagging wingnut? A geography lesson from the Gaza Strip's highest-rated children's show, perhaps?

Nah. That's the New York Times' David Carr, talking about the residents of Missouri and Alabama, in an unbiased and impartial way:

New York Times columnist David Carr responds to Bill Maher implying Alabama and Kansas are not the "smart states."

David Carr: "If it's Kansas, Missouri, no big deal. You know, that's the dance of the low-sloping foreheads. The middle places, right? [pause] Did I just say that aloud?"

Yeah, you did, douchebag.  And if you don't believe it, video is at the link.

Incidentally, I lived in Missouri, about 35 miles out of St. Louis, in 1998-99. Remember landing at the airport and grabbing my rental with a grimace, expecting to have to weave my way through buck-toothed, slacked-jawed, John Deere riding locals on barely paved dirt and spit roads. Instead, I was sandwiched between Jaguars, BMWs, and Benzes on a nice five-lane highway.

Turns out that St. Louis has an incredible medical establishment, including some of the best children's hospitals in the world. And doctor money is doctor money, and they spend it, and so there were plenty of folks living quite nicely, with homes twice the size of a Jersey standard at half the price and with one-quarter the taxes. And they were quite happy to lead quiet, well-off, lives, undisturbed by the local governments and unseen by most of the nation.

Like folks such as the aforementioned David Carr, who obviously has never been to Missouri, but feels free to smear them with a semi-racial slur despite being in complete ignorance of who they are and what they believe.

Some background on David Carr below.   No surprise a guy with this much of hard-left background would make the asinine remarks above.  But the Times...this is their go-to "Culture" guy?  Jeez, those guys are even more far gone than I ever imagined: 

David Carr writes the Media Equation column for the Monday Business section of the New York Times that focuses on media issues including print, digital, film, radio and television. He also works as a general assignment reporter in the Culture section of The Times covering all aspects of popular culture.

Before coming to New York, Carr served as editor of the Washington City Paper, an alternative weekly in Washington D.C. for five years. From 1993 to 1995, Carr was editor of the Twin Cities Reader, a Minneapolis-based alternative weekly, and wrote a media column there as well...

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Michelle Obama Thanks Media For Their Support

You know, I would feel better if at least Michelle had said it with a smirk and a dastardly laugh - "Oh - and thanks for your unwavering commitment to helping my husband and I turn the United States into a socialist paradise.  We couldn't have done it - snort! -  without you...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...."

But she's completely sincere in her gratitude.  Video at Real Clear Politics, transcript below:

CNN reporter:  "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."

Don't worry, Michelle, they love your husband's policies, so they'll give you and your family all the help and support you need.  After all, it's going to be a "vicious" campaign, and even though the hate will primarily be emanating from your side, the folks at CNN and elsewhere will protect you from any blowback, and launch a few counter-offensives on your behalf as well...

Friday, June 24, 2011

The Two Faces of Hillary Clinton: Both Sides Ugly

The most recent, and most famous, remark by the haggard harridan who is our Secretary of State, as made to Congress (the representatives of the American people):

But the bottom line is, whose side are you on? Are you on Qadhafi’s side or are you on the side of the aspirations of the Libyan people and the international coalition that has been created to support them? For the Obama Administration, the answer to that question is very easy.

She questions our patriotism, this unaccomplished, unprincipled, powerwhore, because we refuse to accede our minds to whatever "New Speak" the Obama Administration ("kinetic military action", indeed)uses to justify its latest violation of the constitution.

But what was this two-faced bitch saying on the very same subject just a few years ago, when a more justified war was being waged, but by a president of a different political stripe? Here was the opportunistic Senator back in May of 2003:

I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration...

But apparently, those rights only extend to Democrats, not to Republicans, and certainly not to the American people, who oppose Obama's Libyan adventure wholeheartedly.

If anyone is sick and tired, it is the American people, who have seen Obama break every promise and defy every oath he made on the campaign trail in order to embark upon a socialist agenda no one wanted save the hard Left. So we'll ask what we want, and question who we wish, and that includes you, Hillary Clinton - Obama's handmaiden, bitch-girl, and white slave.

Despite your ugliness both inside and out, I was sure you would leave this administration before what little good was still attached to your name had evaporated completely. Alas, I underestimated your lust for power, for attention, for fawning underlings, and the love of a synchophantic media.

Well, I suppose you got a good price from Old Scratch for your soul. Yet the Devil always gets his due, and you are paying him back in spades...

Carolyn McCarthy, Texting While Driving, & The Limits of Advocacy

Representative McCarthy (D-NY) was certainly a compelling Congressional candidate in 1996.  Her husband had been killed and her son severely injured in a 1993 shooting rampage on the Long Island Railroad by madman Colin Ferguson.  First-term Republican incumbent Daniel Frisa remained opposed to any blanket gun-bans on principle, but found it hard to articulate his views before a salivating media and a opponent who had an unlimited amount of public sympathy.  McCarthy rolled all over him, and has been a Congresswoman ever since.

Well, "Congresswoman" may be a stretch.  She's primarily a one-issue representative, and that issue, unsurprisingly, is gun control.  Having made what headway she could during the Clinton era, her cause has become much less celebrated, as the nation has become more comfortable with being heavily armed (and the lower crime rates that have accompanied that evolution).  So she's found a new killer that she must eradicate: Texting while driving.

Yes, the scourge of America:

 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy wants a national ban on the use of hand-held devices while driving.

The New York Representative said legislation, which she introduced on Thursday, was a “starting point” for later safety measures against the cellphone practice that is “as dangerous as drunk driving.”

“I cannot [overstate] how serious of an issue this is,” said McCarthy during a press conference announcing the legislation. “Distracted driving is one of the most dangerous problems on the road today. It is, in my opinion, as dangerous as drunk driving or drowsy driving.”

About 5,000 people — roughly .0001 percent of the population — are killed each year due to distracted driving, according the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Conversely, there were more than 40,000 drunk driver fatalities in 2009, according to the NHTSA’s latest data.

Is text-driving dangerous?  Yes, but no more so than crossing a busy Manhattan intersection.  McCarthy is the symbol of the activist who must keep pushing, lest they lose their own inflated sense of self-importance.  Think MADD, for instance.  Successful in reducing drunk driving, they are now pushing for what is essentially "zero-tolerance" for even a drop of alcohol in the bloodstream, as well as other Gestapo-like tactics to keep the populace in line.  Note how quickly, too, MADD is losing their cache...

Advocacy gone wild.  In Homer's Odyssey (the Simpsons episode, not the Greek epic), Homer becomes a safety advocate, but goes over the line and eventually drives his fellow citizens crazy.

With these examples in mind (both real and fictional), I'd like to state that is is time for Congresswoman McCarthy to step down.  With a myriad of national crises facing the nation, texting while driving, while certifiably stupid, can be handled at the state and local level.   It's not a federal issue.  If McCarty wants to make it one, she can.  As a private citizen using her former connections to fund an advocacy or awareness group.  Not as a Congresswoman trying to use her power to once again interfere in the lives of ordinary Americans.

Retirement does have its benefits, Carolyn....maybe it's time for you to enjoy them.  Believe it or not, Congresswoman....your work here is done.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Delta Airlines to Jews: Drop Dead!

The airline will now be partnering with Saudi Arabian Airlines, and will submit themselves to Saudi policy, which includes banning entry to any passenger with an Israeli stamp on his or her passport.  As those wacky Nazis used to say, Juden Raus!

As reported by USA Today, before they pulled the story (hence the Tatler link):

"Jews and Israelis, or passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith, will not be able to fly Delta Airlines  flights from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia under Delta’s new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines.

“Passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith will not be able to fly Delta airlines to Saudi Arabia under Delta’s new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines.
“Saudi Arabia bans anyone with an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering the country, even in transit. Many Jews believe the kingdom has also withheld visas from travelers with Jewish-sounding names.
Religious items such as Bibles that are not related to Islam may be confiscated at the airport....

At World Net Daily:

"Hat's off to Delta. It looks like Delta will be the first Shariah-compliant airline in the United States,"

In place of its earlier story, USA Today now runs a story with quite the misleading, somewhat ugly, headline:

Airline to Jewish rumor: 'Delta does not discriminate.'

..where a Delta rep, one Trebor Banstetter, does not at all deny that the aforementioned discrimination will occur, he simply states that Delta is merely enforcing Saudi policy.  Really: of the most important things to mention here is that Delta does not discriminate nor do we condone discrimination against anyone in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender.

That said, some have raised questions about whether Saudi Arabian Airlines' membership in SkyTeam means Delta is adopting any type of policies that could present barriers to travel for some passengers, including Jewish customers. For this particular concern, it's important to realize that visa requirements to enter any country are dictated by that nation's government, not the airlines, and they apply to anyone entering the country regardless of whether it's by plane, bus or train.
We, like all international airlines, are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country we serve
. You as passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents, such as visas and certification of required vaccinations, and we're responsible for making sure that you have the proper documentation before you board.

So it's not a rumor, it's fact.  Delta is simply asking us not to blame them for partnering up with anti-Semites and enforcing a 12th-century morality.  Or, perhaps more more apropos, a 1939-era racial philosophy.  After all, aren't they claiming above that they are" just following orders"?

CEO of Delta Airlines ?

Well, excuse me if I take offense.  Debbie at Right Truth asks, Can you imagine if Israel's airline, EL AL, decided not to fly any Arabs or Muslims?

I ask, can you imagine if an American airline partnered up with a nation that refused to let blacks enter their country?  How long would that business relationship last?  Of course, that's a rhetorical question, no airline based in the United States would ever engage in business relations with a nation that held open hatred towards blacks.  Jews, however....well, that's a bit different.  With anti-Semitism being the coin of the "intellectual" realm these days, Delta officials probably thought their decision wouldn't even get a second glance.

Looks like you made a bit of a misjudgement there, Delta.  This little bit of anti-Semitism ain't gonna fly.  Better rethink your airline partners, while I rebook my travel plans...

Obama's Cynical Afghanistan Strategy - Whose Advice Did He Take? Gulp...

The wise decision of an educated and concerned Commander-in-Chief, or the cheap, insincere manipulations of a political animal?

Do I even need to ask?

Jennifer Rubin  reacts:

...the speech was a disgraceful attempt to manage a war for the president’s personal political ends. This is not merely a case when the right thinks the drawdown is too fast and the left thinks it’s too slow. Rather, there is surprising unanimity that the president has put politics above national security and that his policy lacks a strategic rationale. The president didn’t pretend to argue that the drawdown with a fixed timetable was going to further our strategic aims. Frankly, he declined to even argue that the de-surge wouldn’t impair our objectives. All he wants is out. To spend money at home. He said it. And it is sticking in the craw of Americans of good will on both sides of the aisle.

Bill Kristol:

"...I mean, it is really remarkable when our troop deployment schedule is being determined by David Axelrod, not by David Petraeus.”

Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen makes some cryptic remarks that scare the shit out of me:

Adm. Michael Mullen, President Barack Obama's top military adviser, said Thursday that the White House decision to withdraw surge forces from Afghanistan by the end of the summer in 2012 was "more aggressive" and would "incur more risk" than the admiral had initially been willing to accept...

Who's advice was heeded, and whose was ignored? Here's where I gulp...

Mr. Obama’s decision is a victory for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has long argued for curtailing the military operation in Afghanistan....General Petraeus did not endorse the decision, said another official. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates argued publicly against a too-hasty withdrawal of troops...General Petraeus had recommended limiting withdrawals to 5,000 troops this year and another 5,000 over the winter. He and other military commanders argued that the 18 months since Mr. Obama announced the troop increase did not allow for enough time for the Americans to consolidate the fragile gains that they had made in Helmand and other provinces....

I remember during the 2008 campaign, when Obama's lack of experience was brought up, defenders retorted that he would surround himself with, and lean upon, the best and brightest minds in the nation for advice and guidance.

And I noticed that in barely a week's time, he rejected the counsel of the top White House lawyers in regards to the defense of the "Libyan Kinetic Military Action" and then rejected the advice of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ostentatiously his top military advisor.

Within his rights, of course, to decide to take his own counsel, along with that of Joe Biden (gulp, again).  But to date, just about everything President AssHat has done has gone spectacularly wrong.  Is that because he leaned on his advisers too much, or not enough?

We're about to find out.  And although the media might be congratulating Obama now on a "audacious" political calculation based upon a certain amount of bi-partisan consensus (if you consider Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman to be Republicans, that is), I wonder how smart he will look in September 2012 if, after all the blood and the treasure we spent, the fragile Afghan nation begins to crumble, and amongst the chaos, falls back into the hands of the Taliban...

Like allowing the Nazis to retake Germany by 1950.  Unthinkable, right? 

Not in the Age of The One....

"We Don't Estimate Speeches..."

...says Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the House Budget Committee this morning that his office was unable to estimate the long-term viability of the "budget framework" President Obama outlined in his April 13 budget speech.

"We don't estimate speeches," said Elmendorf. "We need much more specificity than was provided in that speech for us to do our analysis."

That specificity, apparently, simply does not exist. Same link:

Following the speech, an aide to Ryan contacted the budget office at the White House. The president had been vague about how he’d achieve his goals for cutting spending and reducing debt. So the Ryan staffer asked for specifics. Where did the numbers come from? What were the assumptions? What was the spending baseline? Could the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculate the cost of Obama’s plan?

He got no answers. The Ryan aide was referred to the president’s budget, released in February, a budget the speech seemed to supersede. For more information, he was told to contact the White House press office, which pointed him to a “fact sheet.” It was a press release with few facts.

I suppose, much like ObamaCare, we're going to have to pass the President's budget to find out what's really in it...

Paul Ryan, meanwhile, looks smarter every day....

Expect inflation to "drop" unexpectedly...

...providing a dollop of good news for President Obama to campaign on.

Sounds crazy, when you can go broke between a weekend fill-up and a supermarket stop, but it's true.  Or it will be true, as soon as the Obama Administration finishes its plan to change the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to reflect reality as they wish it to be seen.  John Crudele at the New York Post has done excellent reporting in the past on the administration's tampering with the unemployment numbers, so I'd heed his warning here:

Yesterday, it was reported that Biden is leading a group of White House aides who are proposing changes to the Consumer Price Index that measures inflation. The group figures that it will re-word how inflation is described so that when people change their buying habits because of higher costs it tamps down the CPI.

My first point: this is dishonest. My second point: Biden should know that this is already being done. It's called "geometric weighting," has been used for more than a decade (and written about in this column extensively) and does absolutely nothing except cheat senior citizens out of their Social Security cost of living increases.

...and then they'll campaign by demagoging the Republicans as the party that wants to force the elderly to starve.

Man, George Orwell was a piker compared to Obama's Ministry of Truth....

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Jon Huntsman is....Newt Gingrich

Only in the sense that his campaign is over before it has begun.

Yesterday we pointed out his support of a cap & trade economic model, along with a seeming indifference towards health insurance mandates.  Bad enough.  But it gets worse - first, an endorsement from Harry Reid, and now this gem from the former Chairman of the Utah Democratic Party

“The Jon Huntsman I know supported Barack Obama and President Obama’s recovery act, but said it should have been larger,” said Wayne Holland, chairman of the Utah Democratic Party, on a recent conference call with reporters.

The Jon Huntsman I know worked with Democrats to pass the cap-and-trade program and said at the time it was the only alternative to a carbon tax. The Jon Huntsman I know signed into law a health insure exchange and proposed an individual mandate for Utah. It now appears that has all changed.”

Maybe Huntsman should just run a primary challenge to Barack Obama instead.

Incidentally, are Holland and Reid intentionally trying to discredit Huntsman because they buy into the somewhat insane media spin that this is the man to beat in 2012, despite the fact he has no natural constituency whatsoever?  Or are they smarter than they appear, and are trying to push this ambitious waif (sound familiar?) into prominence, knowing he might be the only Republican that Obama can possibly defeat?

We'll never know, because Huntsman has as much of a chance as Newt Gingrich does.  Newt bashed Paul Ryan, the last honest man, while Jon Huntsman bashed...all of America, in a way that would make any good liberal glow with pride:

On the campaign trail, Huntsman often dwells on how America is viewed from abroad. “From 10,000 miles away, folks, let me just tell you that we lack humanity, we lack civility, we lack basic respect for which this country should be known,” Huntsman told one crowd.

Good luck, Jon.  Maybe Obama will open up another ambassadorship for you...

A Democrat Who Gets It Right On Israel

I'm not sure if New York Congressman Gary Ackerman has ever publicly or even privately repudiated Barack Obama by name, but this piece on his website, calling for the release of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (which was the flashpoint for one of the more recent Hamas/Israeli wars), certainly does the job well enough:

U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) today introduced – for the third consecutive Congress – a resolution calling for the immediate release of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Ackerman’s two previous measures, H. Res. 107 passed on March 13, 2007 and H. Res. 1359 passed on June 24, 2010.

Shalit was kidnapped by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas five years ago on June 25, 2006.

Ackerman...issued the following statement upon introducing the resolution:

“I think it is absolutely essential that the United States keep faith with our Israeli allies and stand with them in calling for the immediate release of IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit. The terrorists in Hamas, it should be recalled, snuck into Israel proper and attacked a group of IDF soldiers for the purpose of kidnapping Corporal Shalit in order to hold him hostage. Descending even further into subhuman barbarity, they have forced him to appear in propaganda videos, they have denied him visits from the Red Cross, they have denied him medical attention, and they have prevented him from sending even so much as a postcard to his parents, or allowing them to contact him.

“Hamas’ stooges can say whatever they want about this blood-soaked bunch of terrorists, but their behavior, in the form of unrelenting violence against Israeli civilians and the disgusting anti-Semitism they spew, shows their true beliefs and their real values. These are not partners for any kind of peace. These are thugs hiding an agenda of hate behind a façade of religious devotion.

Well said, Congressman. Maybe you ought to talk to one of the higher-ups in your party, you know - the fellow who thinks that the best way for Israel to negotiate with Hamas is to start by offering a complete and total surrender, and then move backwards (into the sea, perhaps?) from there....

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

The Jon Huntsman Campaign: Why?

The media is playing the entry of Jon Huntsman into the Republican presidential field as if it were Rick Perry, or Mitch Daniels, or Chris Christie - as if he has become the de facto candidate to beat.

And yet, no one can answer the question "why"?  Why should Jon Huntsman be nominated for President?  The current field at least has some wider successes under their belt - Romney as a businessman and a blue-state governor (with Pawlenty showing similar crossover appeal); Herman Cain as a businessman with symbolic importance as a black conservative, Michele Bachmann with her keen understanding of the ires and desires of the Tea Party movement (moreso than almost any politician on the scene), Rick Santorum as a multi-term blue-state Senator and ironclad conservative, and Ron Paul...well, at least Paul gives voice to the fierce libertarian streak that runs through many on the right.

So why Huntsman?  Back in February, Michale Scherer at Time tried to make a compelling case for his candidacy:

"Everybody is gaming out 2012 as if it will be 2010, and it's not," said one Republican laying the groundwork for a Huntsman bid, in an interview with CNN's campaign ace Peter Hamby today. What if in 2012 moderation rules? What if competence is a more important message than ideological difference? What if having worked with Obama is an asset? What if reasonableness trumps outrage? What if people don't just want to throw the bums out, because they tried that three times and it hasn't really worked?

We are in a new age, though no one knows yet just how long it will last or what it all means. Republicans and Democrats sat together during the State of the Union. Barack Obama and Mitch McConnell worked together on a major tax bill. Keith Olbermann is gone from MSNBC. Michele Bachmann has been cast into the outer rings of awkward third-party video responses. However fleeting, we are in an era of moderation.

That "era" lasted about 15 minutes, pal.  And it's your side who tossed "moderation" out the window a long time ago.  And guess what? Having worked with Obama is still not an asset!  And about Michele Bachmann being on the "outer rings", seems as if she's more part of an inner circle, and may yet earn a key spot on the ticket.

That's a bad stab at "why", but even Huntsman's biggest supporters - the mainstream media - can't really do much better.  Jen Rubin writes on an awkward exchange:

From the mainstream media’s standpoint, he is the McCain 1980. He’s a “good Republican” — not too conservative, not too loyal to his party and infatuated (at least he was) with cap-and-trade. And unlike McCain, he’s running to the incumbent president’s left on foreign policy. So it’s not surprising he is lavished with praise. A political reporter asked me the other day, “Don’t you think Huntsman will eat Bachmann’s lunch?” Umm. No. But the total ignorance about the conservative movement is telling and will infuse the mainstream coverage of his race.

Probably, Huntsman's entry will help Michele Bachmann most, as the distraction will keep her out of the media's cross-hairs for a few weeks longer, allowing her to polish her message before they distort it.

But back to the "why" of the Huntsman presidential campaign.  Still not there yet, but I can tell you why not:

As the governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman said he was "comfortable" with the idea of an individual mandate for health insurance and signed a bill requiring his state to study the costs and benefits of one.And here's another reason why not, from Huntsman himself:

Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.

And of course, the fact that he jumped on the Obama bandwagon, and offered his services as ambassador to help facilitate our capitulation to China is another reason why Huntsman is a non-starter with the Republican base.  And the middle, and maybe even the RHINO fringe...

So if you came looking for a response "why Huntsman?", well, sorry to disappoint, I've got nothing.  But since I don't want anyone to leave Right, Wing-Nut! disappointed, I'll offer your the aforementioned Michael Scherer's rationale for a Huntsman candidacy:

Pro-life, pro-gun, rides motocross, and his gray highlights are even slicker looking than Mitt Romney's.....

Monday, June 20, 2011

Has golf become Barack Obama's "escape mechanism" from reality?

Salena Zito talks about golf, and economics. I talk about psychology. But let's start with golf:

Most golfers, according to Western Pennsylvania Golf Association spokesman Jeff Rivard, play 20 or so rounds a year. The president has played more than 70 rounds in two years -- amid a recession, three wars, a Mideast meltdown, and an economy not flourishing under his stimulus and bailout programs.

"That is well above average, especially for a man with a schedule like that," said Rivard. "Pretty much double the average.

Plus, he looks like a douche:

But why spend all that time away from the office? Maybe he doesn't like what he has listen to:

Several Democrat strategists candidly admit that the president has not been very effective at communicating in a manner that reaches voters. "They do not believe he shares their values and their concerns," conceded one.

Simple things, such as Obama not receiving economic briefings for more than a month, make voters scratch their heads -- especially when the jobs data are anything but optimistic...

But why would he go out golfing instead of doing what he was hired to do, what he assured us he could do - working tirelessly to improve the economic fortunes of America?

Maybe he doesn't want to get those economic briefings any longer because he knows what they are going to say - his prescriptions have failed, the economy is moribund, additional stimulus is unpopular and unaffordable, his ideology has proven invalid, and the best way out of this mess he exacerbated is to cut spending and taxes, and leave the private sector to work what magic it can.

But certain folks - say,intellectually inflexible ones - are either unwilling to or incapable of wrapping their mind around a new worldview, or experimenting with ideas they have spent a lifetime condemning. Egotistical people are the worst, seeing a change of mind as an admission of failure, a public humiliation, and are unable to bear the thought of suffering loss of face, so to speak, for abandoning a long-held and vigorously defended position.

So what to do, when the only way out of a life-threatening predicament is repudiation of all you have held dear?

Well, you can admit error and chart a new path, to save those whom you lead.

Or, of course, you can plug your ears, send away the messengers of doom, and run off to the golf course and shoot a quick 18, seemingly oblivious to the world collapsing around you.

Seems to me as if Barack Obama has already made his choice.

The Palestinians: Down To Their Last Friend?

An interesting tale out of Lebanon, from Judith Levy at Ricochet:

The Grand Mufti of Lebanon, Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani, held a meeting in Beirut last week with a delegation representing the 400,000 Palestinians living in Lebanese refugee camps. The meeting was called to address thefts of Islamic Wakf lands in Lebanon by Palestinians.

“We’ve hosted you and no longer want you,” Qabbani said. "I will defend Wakf lands, even if it costs me all I have.”

The Jerusalem Post describes the astonished delegation as attempting to "muzzle" Qabbani, sending him right over the edge. "You are trash!" he said to the Palestinians. "You will never be victorious. Nor will your cause. I’m no longer afraid of your weapons.” Then he threw them out of his office.

As Levy goes on to point out, Hezbollah uses the Palestinian "cause" as their excuse to terrorize Israel; the Lebanese now blame Hezbollah and the Palestinians for the rain of death from above that usually follows.

The residents of the peaceful Jordanian kingdom despise the Palestinians for attempting to destabilize their quiet little regime. The Saudis loathe them in a class-war type of way, and while the prior Egyptian regime always kept them at arm's length, it is unlikely that the new regime will offer more than lip service. After all, bankrupting the nation via war with Israel after 38 years of peace is the best way to insure that the new will go out as fast as the old. And while the Iranians support the Palestinians to the hilt as tools for their religious war against the Jews, the Iranian people hate them mightily, and the Palestinians are one assassin's bullet away from losing their proudest sponsor.

But they can still act with impudence and swagger. Why? Defying the trend and sticking by their side through thick and thin, right and wrong, is President Barack Hussein Obama. If he abandoned them now, they might be forced to make peace with Israel, lest they be left without a friend in the world.

But they know Barack has their back. So the terror and hate continues, unabated....

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Dads Rock.... enjoy your Father's Day!

Any man can be a father. It takes someone special to be a dad. ~Author Unknown

My finger may be small but I can still wrap my Daddy around it. ~Author Unknown

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Bloomberg's Ground Zero Museum: For The Rich Only

At this rate, the only folks that will be able to get into the Ground Zero museum are the monied liberal elite, who will cluck their tongues at how horrible this "tragedy" was, and speak loudly of how it all could have been averted if we had only been nicer to the Islamic world. Or had just given them that pesky little Jewish state.

This memorial will be for rich folks only. And apparently, that's the way Mike Bloomberg wants it:

Mayor Bloomberg didn't waste any time endorsing a hefty admission fee for the over-designed 9/11 museum at Ground Zero.

"Well, the money's got to come from someplace," the mayor shrugged on his weekly radio interview.

Joe Daniels, president of the museum's operating foundation, told the City Council he needs to charge up to $25 per person as a "suggested donation," or a flat $20 mandatory admission fee, to "generate revenue in line with other world-class museums."

Well, the "world-class" part remains to be seen.

And, even so, it's a grotesque fee for a facility meant to note the thousands of lives lost in the 9/11 sneak attack.

To Bloomberg, on the other hand, the museum is little more than just another New York tourist attraction.

"Given people pay 12, 15 bucks to go to the movies," he argued, "if you have a nominal charge that helps pay the bills, I certainly have no objections to that."

And proving that Bloomberg's first instinct is to think like a billionaire philanthropist, he suggested that "people that gave all that money" -- $400 million that's been raised privately -- "I think you can certainly say maybe they should be able to get in for nothing."

"Maybe [you] can make the case for [9/11 victim] family members," he added.

So $25- a head, or $100- for a family of four, is a "nominal" fee to Mike Bloomberg. Wonder how nominal it is to his constituents?

Don't worry, though - if you've already spent a million or two on this museum, Bloomie will let you in for free. And if you had a family member killed in the 9/11 attacks? "Maybe" the Mayor will give you a discount know, half-off for your loss, or something....

Friday, June 17, 2011

"Weiner Yanks Himself..."

One of many headlines and stories in the New York Post bashing disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who did no help to his cause yesterday with his self-serving, high-handed resignation.  A few choice morsels...

From an editorial:

Graceless to the end one who has watched Weiner over the years should have been surprised.

From the start, Anthony Weiner was self-obsessed, arrogant and self-righteous; his frequent public temper tantrums, including on the floor of Congress, were the stuff of YouTube legend.

True enough, the notoriety helped him get girls (online, anyway). But it takes a special kind of weird for him to have thought he could get away with it all.

Now Weiner says he'll be "looking for other ways to contribute my talents."

Spare us....

Michael Goodwin:

Now we know why he found it so easy to lie to the cameras and his wife for most of the last three weeks. He's still lying to himself about the depths of his depravity...

It's easy to see why nobody in Congress would rise to his defense. He is the kind of man about whom it is said that even his friends don't like him.

He is dishonorable by every definition, yet refuses to accept that truth in his own head. Weiner is a weasel even to himself.

...A strident, arrogant partisan, he was all about scoring political points to advance his career. His is the kind of ruthless ambition that gives ambition a bad name.

Did he ever believe in anything other than his own career?

Finally, John Podhoretz, who points out a final, revolting dodge by Dick Weiner:

Having spent days insulting those who sought only the truth, having lied in the most blatant manner and having instructed others to lie for him, Weiner then had the astonishing lack of grace to stand before the world and thank his parents for "instilling in me the values that got me to this point."

That choice of words -- which seems nice at first glance but which, in effect, unconsciously puts the blame for his behavior on his own mother and father -- may represent the most disgusting thing he's done so far....

Maybe.  But - based on the fact that he's still placing blame, taking responsibility verbally while denying it with his smirks and sneers - I think Weiner has yet to hit rock bottom.

Unfortunately, I expect to see his unsightly bulge once again on a Twitter feed near you...