Obama To Feed North Korean Army...With US Taxpayer Dollars

Laugh, cry, scream, and/or pull out your hair?  Those are among the many options available when you read this little foreign policy "victory" being announced by the White House.  The question is, a victory for whom?

Here's the "good news":

North Korea agreed on Wednesday to stop nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches, and to allow checks by nuclear inspectors, in an apparent policy shift that paves the way for resuming long-stalled disarmament talks.

Note the subtle difference in the Nork's press release:

"The DPRK, upon request by the U.S. and with a view to maintaining positive atmosphere for the DPRK-U.S. high-level talks, agreed to a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and uranium enrichment activity at Yongbyon and allow the IAEA to monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment while productive dialogues continue," North Korea's official KCNA news agency said.

Please to note that Yongbyon is only one of a number of suspected Nork nuke sites. Seems as if Dear Leader Jr. has left himself wiggle room as far as "activities" may go at any other nuclear test sites...as well as an opening to queer the entire deal once he has the foodstuff.  After all, who defines "productive dialogue"?

"Worse than bad", says Jack David:

Wholly apart from the fact that North Korea has dishonored each and every non-proliferation agreement it has made over the years and can be expected not to comply with this agreement as well, its promise to suspend already-illegal activities in one location leaves it completely free to continue them elsewhere. Making a single-site moratorium on North Korea’s nuclear misconduct the central feature of an agreement is astonishingly foolish

The U.S. promise to supply North Korea with 240,000 metric tons of food aid as part of the bargain also is more than suspect...virtually all international food aid it previously has received has been diverted from the intended beneficiaries to the purposes of the North Korean elites and military....Given that the U.S. announced its promise of the food aid without details, it probably is too much to hope that the details will address this...

"Step lively, boys! American pizza for dinner tonight!"

The Obama administration isn't much good at details.  They'll claim "best intentions" when the North Korean people starve to death this winter anyway,  kept captive in fear and terror by a well-fed army.

"Aw, what's the matter, kids? Couldn't find enough grass and tree bark to eat today?"

An army well fed by Barack Obama.  Using our money.

One begins to wonder if he can really be this stupid.  Perhaps we should look for another rationale for this behavior.

Perhaps, filled with a new-found confidence in his assured re-election (as divined by his oracles in the White House), the president no longer feels the need to cloak his moves in liberal propaganda anymore, but is ready to come out of the closet, so to speak, and declare himself and his true intentions -  for this nation, and for the world...

You Know, Maybe That Mitt Fellow Can Win In November (Part II)

In which Ann Althouse conducts a simple (but unscientific) reader poll, and gets an answer well beyond the range of any margin of error:

Let's assume you've got complicated, extensive financial affairs. We're talking about all your life's savings, all the contingencies of a long retirement for you and medical care for you and your family, and all of the wealth that could be preserved for your children and grandchildren, and all that you might be able to contribute to various causes.

So:

Now there's the winning ticket in November...if Mitt has the courage to use it.

Following Up On Jake Tapper's Line Of Questioning...

...is the New York Times, of all publications, and they seem to give credence to his charge, made last week,  that left both Jay Carney (and other observers) open mouthed:

“How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court?”

Jay sputtered and other pool reporters rolled their eyes, but the Times seems to agree with Jake:

The Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance “whistle-blower laws to protect federal workers,” has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers.

The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office.

Abusing power much, Mr. President? This example cited by the Times is something you'd expect to see in Soviet Russia:

In one of the more remarkable examples of the administration’s aggressive approach, Thomas A. Drake, a former employee of the National Security Agency, was prosecuted under the Espionage Act last year and faced a possible 35 years in prison.

His crime? When his agency was about to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a software program bought from the private sector intended to monitor digital data, he spoke with a reporter at The Baltimore Sun. He suggested an internally developed program that cost significantly less would be more effective and not violate privacy in the way the product from the vendor would. (He turned out to be right, by the way.)

He was charged with 10 felony counts that accused him of lying to investigators and obstructing justice. Last summer, the case against him collapsed, and he pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor, of misuse of a government computer.

Will this new-found media attention stop the Obama Administration's rapacious appetite for the destruction of our civil and free society? Or will the New York Times' David Carr find himself drinking a uranium-237 cocktail?

One wonders what this Administration is really up to, and what it believes it can get away with, if it is confident no one on the inside will squeal under penalty of virtual life imprisonment...(like, say, maybe..."Fast & Furious"?)

As I have said before...there is nothing you can rule out, no volition, no act of domestic terror, no nefarious motivation, when you are dealing with Barack Obama and his cadre of socialists...

Sanctimonious Sting Sucks Up To Syria's Assad

Tropical deforestation is an issue that affects us all....The mission of the Rainforest Foundation UK is to support indigenous peoples and traditional populations of the world's rainforest in their efforts to protect their environment and fulfil their rights to land, life and livelihood
~From the website of The Rainforest Foundation, founded in 1989 by Sting and his wife Trudie

Yeah, but what about a murderous tyrant who shells his own people - including women and children - into deadly submission so as to maintain his cruel hold on power?

Well, sure they are indigenous to Syria, but they're not "indigenous-indigenous"...and after all, Assad and his wife have British roots, and they have a lot of money, so..ahem...what's the problem? It's not as if he was a Republican!

There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view

Apparently not. No protection for the people Sting calls "the man on the street", but plenty of protection for the butcher of Syria.  From 2008:

 And the fragmentation bombs we dropped on Homs were this big!

"Yes, Assad my friend, the slaughter of the innocent is funny....but if you pull on your beard thoughtfully while smirking about it, you can come off as hip and sophisticated..."

The excuse for this helacious hobnobbing: Sting's people claim he was merely on holiday in the area and accepted an invitation to meet the Damascus elite. "At that time, Assad was relatively new to power and regarded as Westernised and, so, a potentially democratising influence in the Middle East.’

Nobody was fooled. Except the dumbest liberals on the planet (See Obama, Barack and Clinton, Hillary) and pretentious, preening pop stars.

What's Sting going to do now?  In his own words:

Why must I think of you?
Why must I? Why should I?
Why should I cry for you?

Expect no penance from those who feel no guilt..

Why is Newark Falling Apart? Ask The City Council...

With the pure-blue social model falling apart quicker than the rest of a purple nation, we can look to them to see what our future holds under continued liberal governance.  We have Detroit as Example A, for sure, but Newark, New Jersey shows us who will be the first to go when that budget crunch finally hits home - and who will leech 'till the very end:

In Newark they’ve cut 1,000 jobs, including 163 police officers is a crime-ridden city. But over at the City Council, they’re living high on the hog. Including council members, there are 57 people in that department and no one has been laid off since 2006. Council members told The Star-Ledger their departmental staffs, salaries and city cars are more than justified by service to residents, who look to the council for help with everything from housing to bail money. Bail money? Council members collectively spent $20,000 yearly on gas for their city-issued cars. The council has a budget of $4.15 million.

That the 20th most dangerous city in America you're talking about, and they are cutting cops because the politicians won't give up their free cars, free gas, and staffs of go-fors. They justify it by claiming that without their assistance, Newark residents would be able to get all the free government money they are entitled to.

Including bail money? No wonder Newark politicians are laying off cops. Apparently, they are subsidizing crime...

Which, of course, leads to this:

Barack Obama: Still Obsequious to Muslims, Still Hostile Towards Catholics...

..and Jews, of course.  But who would ever had thought a man named Barack Hussein Obama would seek to actively disrupt, if not discredit and destroy, the Judeo-Christian foundation of faith?  Shocking, I know...

Obsequious:
-characterized by or showing servile complaisance or deference; fawning
-servilely compliant or deferential: "obsequious servants".
-obedient; dutiful.

If the definition fits...

So the president refuses to apologize for forcing Catholics to violate their religious beliefs or pay a tax penalty.

But he immediately apologizes because a few of our soldiers inadvertently violated Muslims religious beliefs by trying to dispose of already-desecrated Korans.

Well, despite his apology, hoardes of semi-barbarian Afghans went on a rampage, burned Obama in dog-head effigy, and killed several of our soldiers.

And if you think that’s bad, just imagine what they would do if Obama adopted a rule forcing Muslims to violate their religious beliefs or pay a tax penalty.

 Of course, there is another theory: that Judeo-Christian culture is being intentionally destroyed in order to leave only one god left standing worthy of worship and obedience - the central government (as the mandate debate has proven, there is no room for both). And who has done most of the heavy lifting in that regard?

Who else has been waging war against the Church? Why, Islam. While most of the Middle East outside of Israel is already "Judenrein", Christians are now being chased out of their ancestral homeland as well. While the Crusades are part of our ancient history, in Islamic lands the battle still rages.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, no?

The liberal-Islamic alliance makes perfect sense now, as they both share the same aim: the destruction of Catholicism and its institutions....


Remember:  With Barack and the Democrats running the show, what would once have been seen as outlandish is now within the plausible... 


"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."

Hillary Assures Foreigners America Is A One-Party State

Every now and then I forget what a repulsive women Hillary Clinton is.  Then she opens her bitch-trap, and it all comes flooding back.  Like real bad sushi.

In Tunisia, the old harridan answers questions about the American political process and the ongoing Republican primary:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton advised an audience in Tunisia on Saturday to “not pay attention” to the comments made by candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination, saying the often overheated rhetoric of the campaign doesn’t reflect U.S. policy.

Speaking at a town-hall style event in Tunisia, the North African nation that sparked the “Arab Spring” revolts, Clinton said the partisan remarks made during campaign events “certainly don’t reflect the United States, don’t reflect our foreign policy, don’t reflect who we are as a people.”

Really? And what words and actions are the reflection of who we are as a people, Hillary? Your empty overseas sloganeering and America-bashing? Or your boss's incessant groveling, apologizing, and appeasement?

I always thought the voters determined our national will; and the process we are currently engaged is what gives it voice.  Hillary Clinton appears to believe otherwise, however - the process is to be ignored, that it is her view, and that of the Democratic party, that are the only legitimate expression of the American vision.

I'd love for her to answer the same question on November 7th, after Republicans take over all three branches of government.

But you know what? Even if the American people gave the GOP a clean sweep, I'd bet Hillary would answer the question the same exact way.

After all, any other vision for America that opposes hers is by nature wrong. Because liberals are always right. About everything.

Funny - by stating that the battle of ideas being pitched in the Republican primaries are "not representative of the united States", isn't she questioning my patriotism for refusing to echo her party line?

In fact...



"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."


Yeah, me too, lady. So maybe you ought to shut the f*ck up right about now?

Rooting For #49 At The 2012 Daytona 500

J.J. Yeley will be driving the #49 Robinson-Blakeney Toyota at the Daytona 500 Sunday, and it will be carrying the graphics of a most unique sponsor:  America/Israel Racing:

The story, via Motorsports 101

Rich Shirey and Mark MacCaull started the not-for profit organization last year to promote awareness as a means to strengthen relations between the United States and Israel.

“Rich and I were good friends and Rich had the idea of how America needs to support Israel,” MacCaull said. “We were just talking about it one day and decided the Daytona 500 would be a great place to promote this and my background was in NASCAR racing.

“I’m just a regular guy, a country guy and NASCAR has a lot of average people just like me,” Shirey said. “We need to show the world, show Israel, that regardless of the way it might look at times, the people in this country have the belief of appreciating them being an ally and a democracy similar to ours.

“Being raised Southern Baptist and the belief that we should back Israel if we believe what the Bible says and the other side of it," Shirey said. "it’s not a political thing that motivates me – we have a country that is our closest ally in a part of the world that is not very friendly, especially to the west."

“I’m not a movie star. I’m not a country music singer. I didn’t have the avenue. I went to Mark and said NASCAR would be a fantastic to try to build this cause."


Remember this story, when the Beltway/New York elite tell you how backward and racist those "NASCAR Voters" are, all while splitting their "charitable giving" between Hamas and Barack Hussein Obama.

Stopping by the AIR site right now to donate a little gas money myself.  And I'll be rooting for #49 on Sunday.  It's a longshot, and they're a huge underdog, but they'll be representing for a little country whose been in that position their entire existence...


A few more views of J.J. Yeley's #49 Toyota:

Michelle Obama Wants To Spread The Wealth...To Michelle Obama

Michelle takes a break from being our national nutritional scold to doing what she does best - whoring herself out for cash:

First lady Michelle Obama has joined her husband's bandwagon to hit the rich and spread the wealth, questioning how well-off families can feel good if others are struggling.

To about 300 supporters wealthy enough to pay $300-$10,000 to attend the mid-day event, the first lady said, "If a family in this country is struggling, we cannot be satisfied with our own families' good fortune."

She also rapped the rich, as has her husband. "Who do we want to be?" Obama asked. "Will we be a country where success is limited to the few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off."

And who will be the best off if Barack Obama gets re-elected? George Savage at Ricochet:

Freshly returned from her Colorado ski trip, itself a much needed respite from her Hawaiian vacation the prior month, the nation's nutritionist-in-chief reminded the rich donors in attendance of the importance of spreading wealth around to the less fortunate ... like the Obamas.

Michelle in particular. She does have a taste for 5-star resorts, $540 sneakers, $1,000 boots, and shiny baubles running into six figures...and lord knows that Barack - like any smart pimp - doesn't want to lose his bottom bitch...

It's Not About Jake Tapper, It's About The Woman Behind Him...

Tapper, the Last Honest Man in American journalism, smacks up Obama's bitch as he piously praises aggressive journalism...in other countries.

“How does that square with the fact that this administration has been so aggressively trying to stop aggressive journalism in the United States by using the Espionage Act to take whistleblowers to court?”
“You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States.”
“So the truth should come out abroad; it shouldn’t come out here?”




But you know what is priceless? The expression of the woman with the horn-rimmed glasses on her nose sitting just behind Tapper. Her eyebrows arch skyward as he dares speaks truth to power, she shakes her head ever so slightly, and looks away in disgust, eyes, rolled, while barely keeping her glasses perched on her proboscis.

Not the kind of questions she would ask, I suppose...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Hates $3/Gallon Gas, Loves It At $5?

That's an assumption, of course, based on this video from back in 2005, when she went after the Bush Administration for allowing gas prices to rise to $3-/gallon.  In retrospect, was she actually trying to hint, as Barack Obama and his energy secretary have said repeatedly, that gas really needs to be around $5-/gallon? Because, you know, this awful woman has been awful quiet these last few days...

Or  I am just overestimating the philosophical and analytical skills of a mere hypocritical dunce?

Both answers are probably correct, but you can judge for yourself:

You Know, Maybe This Mitt Fellow Can Win After All...

Jim Geraghty speaks with tongue firmly implanted within cheeks when discussing the 2011-2012 debating season, but his point is spot-on:

Romney is...pretty shameless about going after opponents’ inconsistencies and unpopular positions that he himself held earlier in his career – but the audaciousness of it tends to leave the opposition flustered and infuriated.

Last night, he jabbed at Santorum, “When I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the Bridge to Nowhere.” Really, after lines like that, people doubt Romney’s willingness to go after Obama? If nominated, Romney will probably lacerate Obama on the individual mandate, not cutting spending, insufficient support for drilling, demonizing the wealthy, and so on. Obama may coolly point out Romney’s past support for those positions . . . and I suspect Romney will just ignore it and point out that those positions are the wrong ones, and the American public opposes them. Would voters prefer the consistent man who stands for ideas they oppose? Or will they prefer a flip-flopper who currently holds the positions they support?

That's an interesting question, and I think we'll get our answer on the morning of November 7th.  But while many on the Right have complained  - justifiably - that Romney goes negative fast, hard, and often, I would like to remind them who our candidate will be running against in a few months.

Billion-dollar Barack, the biggest liar in the pack, with the media in his pocket and our freedoms on the docket.  Or if analogies suit you better...let's say one last epic battle will determine your freedom.  Who would you prefer wage that war:  Some crisply-pressed armchair soldiers spouting conventional wisdom and politically correct platitudes, or a hard man, unshaven, with a filthy uniform, holding a cold heart and a warm gun?

Mitt Motherf*cking Romney?  Hmmm...

Well, like him or not, Mitt has been campaigning to win.  Lots of us on the Right are miffed because he's defeating our guys.  But maybe he's the best man to send up against  theirs?

I realize Mitt is half a loaf, at best.  But we're in danger of dying here.  Are we really going to turn away what could be our last chance at survival because we're insulted by being anything less than being entirely satiated?

Let's go to war with the army we've got.... 

What Does Peter Orzag And Valerie Jarrett Know That The Rest Of Us Do Not?

I ask simply because their commentary over the last 24-48 hours has bordered on bizarre.  And based upon recent developments, crazy talk coming from Administration officials or the mainstream media can no longer be dismissed as simple out-loud liberal fetishizing/fantasizing.  Remember when we thought George Stephanopoulos was off the deep end for asking question after question about contraceptives - a non-issue at the time - during the Republican debate?  A lot has changed since then, and one can only wonder how much Bill Clinton's little bitch-boy knew about Obama's plan to rape the 1st Amendment before he started asking those crazy questions...

"Mr. Stephanopoulos? The White House on line 1, they want to review your debate prep for tonight..."

Anyway - here's Peter Orzag, Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget, explaining to us that yes, a recession/depression is actually good for our health:

Given the added anxiety created by a weak economy, you might think life expectancy would decline. Oddly, though, during recessions, exactly the opposite tends to happen: Life expectancy rises.

Life expectancy appears to have risen more in the states with relatively large increases in unemployment. In Michigan and Illinois, for example, where joblessness rose much more than in North Dakota or Iowa, age-adjusted death rates have had a steeper decline since 2007. (In the states with the smallest increase in unemployment, the death rates have perversely risen.)

What's the point of all this, except to say that in states with the shittiest economies, you'll live about four months longer? Somehow, Orzag comes to this conclusion:

Despite the increase in life expectancy from a recession, therefore, the best policy approach remains an aggressive support for the economy now, coupled with lots of deficit reduction enacted today but implemented later on.

Wha?

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that more bad news is on the horizon, and Orzag is trying to soften the blow of both a re-recession and soften up the ground for another Obama budget that hikes spending and taxes.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that Obama's closest confidante, Valerie Jarrett, is saying the same exact thing:

"And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it's good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that's healthy as well."

My guess: A perfect economic shit-storm is on the horizon, with unemployment about to pop back up to 9%, coupled with $5/gallon gas, and a stock market buffeted and broken by the winds of Europe's failed single-currency experiment. Right now is just the moment of calm before the storm, and inside the Obama Administration, they are crapping cod. So their minions are sent out to proclaim that the bad economy is good for your health, that being on perpetual unemployment is a "healthy" thing, and that tax-and-spend is our only path to freedom.

It's an early attempt at narrative control, just like Stephanopoulos attempted, somewhat successfully, a few weeks back.  Consider the words of Orzag and Jarrett to be in the same vein,  a foreshadowing of something wicked coming down the 'pike...

Gulp.

On The Road To Serfdom? Try A Fast-Track To A Bust-Out...

MSM Money has a little slide show about the 15 richest counties in America.  Love the preamble:

While many Americans struggle to find jobs, balance their budgets and get by with less, some folks are living high on the hog.

Using the most recent Census Bureau data, from 2010, we chose the 15 counties in the U.S. with the highest median household incomes. With three counties exceeding the $100,000 mark, life seems pretty good in these areas, even as the U.S. median household income declined 2.3% from 2009 to 2010. Still, the following 15 richest counties have a median income that is about double the national average of $49,445.

Click ahead to see if your county made the list...

Unless you live within commuting distance of the United States Capitol, there is no need for you to waste your time.  Like the days of yore, the wealth is concentrated around the king and queen, and slowly diminishes in expanding concentric circles:

Of these 15, five are in Maryland (Howard, Montgomery, Calvert, St. Mary’s, Charles) and five are in Virginia (Loudoun, Fairfax, Arlington, Stafford, Prince William). Four of the remaining five are in the New York City area, and one is in Colorado. No Silicon Valley, nothing in the Chicago area, no oil wealth, no Southern California. ..

That’s what’s wrong with this country: You want to get rich, go to Washington.

But what exactly are they doing in DC to get so wealthy, without actually creating anything? Richard Fernanadez explains what Tony Soprano knows all too well:

Someone in the previous thread expressed astonishment that “public policy” should be a career. It’s not just a career, it’s a gold mine, properly approached.

One of the interesting things about the American economy, perhaps the world economy, is how it keeps trying to grow in spite of all attempts to beat it down.... It is like rooting for the caterpillar even while it is being devoured alive by parasitic wasps. Though clearly doomed, you can’t help but but admire the critter’s spunk.

Why so many extortionists? Because it is at present more profitable to be a racketeer than to be an entrepreneur. It makes more economic sense to invent some scam like Global Warming and then wait to be paid to go away than it is to frack for oil.
 Right now, selling bureaucratic protection is a land office business. Therefore it attracts the underemployed members of the minor aristocracy who see in it a potential source of income. What they fail to understand is that in the long run it cuts their throats too...

Like thugs with delusions of grandeur but brains of walnuts. So our government - full of what Fernandez charitably calls "minor aristocrats" and what Ayn Rand described as looters, treats our nation the way Tony Soprano's crew handles a small business that, ahem, "fell" into their hands:

A "bust out" is a common tactic in the organized crime world, wherein a business' assets and lines of credit are exploited and exhausted to the point of bankruptcy. Richie and Tony profit from busting out Davey Scatino's sporting goods store in this episode...
When asked by Davey why Tony let him get into debt, Tony replies that he knew Davey had the store and other assets he could take, and instinctively saw an opportunity for profit.

And how different is that from a president who allows up to run up an unthinkable amount of debt, or perhaps provides "favors" to a population, then takes everything they've got as recompense, as payment for services rendered or services due, whether or not one has even asked for them in the first place?

It's a gangster government. If you think they're gonna run a fair game this November, than you haven't been watching enough TV...

Here We Go: Netanyahu Coming To Town In March...

Oh, Lordy, have we seen the fur fly when these two get together.  And it's usually Barack who's made to look like the Coyote to Bibi's Road Runner.  You can go back to 2010, when Obama stormed out on the Israeli PM, then refused to take photos with him.  Or last year, when Obama decided to push the Jews back to the 1967 borders, only to be mocked and denied by Netanyahu, Congress, and the American people.

Not that Obama hasn't gotten his nasty little shots in.  He's intent on blaming Israel of the deaths of the Iranian scientists, and he's let his personal animosity towards the leader of the Jewish state known in a bitchy little aside made to France's Sarkozy that was inadvertently picked up by the mics.

So what can we expect this time? Jonathan Tobin thinks that Obama, at least for the moment, will roll over like a good puppy:

With the president fighting hard to retain the votes and the financial support of American Jews and other friends of Israel, Netanyahu can expect that Obama will be on his very best behavior when he arrives next month for a visit that was announced yesterday.

With evidence mounting that Obama and the Democrats have been bleeding Jewish support in the last year, the visit will take the president’s charm offensive aimed at convincing the Jewish community he is Israel’s best friend to a new level...

But while Netanyahu will oblige the rpesident and say the requisite nice things on camera, behind close doors one can expect a fierce ideological struggle of what to do about Iran. Israel senses an existential threat and wants to stop the Iranian nuclear program in its tracks. Obama, on the other hand, seems only concerned about containment - of Israel.

Appearing on CNN, General Dempsey sent precisely the wrong message if the main U.S. strategic goal is convincing Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. He said the U.S. is urging Israel not to attack Iran—because Iran hasn't decided to build a bomb, because an Israeli attack probably wouldn't set back Iran by more than a couple of years, and because it would invite retaliation and be "destabilizing" throughout the Middle East. . .

In a single sound bite, General Dempsey managed to tell the Iranians they can breathe easier because Israel's main ally is opposed to an attack on Iran, such attack isn't likely to work in any case, and the U.S. fears Iran's retaliation. It's as if General Dempsey wanted to ratify Iran's rhetoric that the regime is a fearsome global military threat.

How has appeasement worked so far? Yeah, exactly...

Netanyahu is in no mood to watch the Iranians prepare to execute their long-promised Second Holocaust while Obama engages in liberal word-games and play-acting. As the president would say, let there be no mistake: There will be a deep divide between these two men on how to handle this developing situation. The only question is, will they be able to paper it over and smile nicely in public, or will Obama erupt once again in yet another fit of ill-tempered pique and spite, embarrassing himself and harming our relations with our closest ally in the process?

Here we go...

So Does This Mean He Has To Behead Himself?

Sean Christopher Ali Stone, son of director Oliver Stone, on his recent conversion to Islam:

“I am of a Jewish bloodline, a baptized Christian who accepts Christ’s teachings, the Jewish Old Testament and the Holy Koran. I believe there is one God, whether called Allah or Jehovah or whatever you wish to name him. He creates all peoples and religions. I consider myself a Jewish Christian Muslim."


Good luck with that. You'll be fine as long as they need useful idiots. Once your job is done, well...even the kapos of the concentration camps eventually felt the oven's burn...

And right on cue, he whines about being a victim of "Islamaphobia" as he tells us, with classic elitist patronization, that he is trying to open up a "debate about religion".

Maybe he can invite Daniel Pearl to the forum?  Oh, wait...

Cause And Effect Even A Liberal Can Understand...

NPR, July 2010:

Some D.C. Residents Say It's Too Hard To Get A Gun

 The toughest thing about getting a gun in the district is finding a gun store. There are none. You have to drive to a neighboring state like Maryland to buy a weapon.

In the showroom, salesman Jack Donald can sell you a gun. But if you have a D.C. driver's license, you'll have to transfer the weapon to someone with a federal firearms license in D.C.

"He takes possession of the gun from us," Donald says. "He charges a transfer fee — I believe it's $125."

Then the federal licensee gives your gun back to you. But you're still not ready to go, Donald notes.

"You have to be fingerprinted, you have to submit photographs, you have to take a class that's supposed to consist of four hours of classroom and an hour of range time with ... a District of Columbia approved instructor," he explains.

That can bring the cost of registering to more than $500. That's a lot of work and expense...


The Washington Times, today:

Violent crime in D.C. surges in 2012
Violent crime so far this year in the District has spiked sharply — a 40 percent increase that includes twice as many robberies at gunpoint than at this time last year...

And yet you will hear the Left cry out that if only gun control was wound tighter, these crimes would never have happened in the first place...

Which makes me wonder: How many of the weapons used in these robberies were picked up at places like Jack's shop in Maryland? And how many of the criminals that have been captured went through the DC's vigourous screening process?

Assuming the District police have been competent enough to catch a few bad guys, they should have the stats on this.

The fact that they're not saying means only one thing: Time to get your ass up to "Maryland Small Arms" to see Jack Donald, unless you want to be next on the DC's stat sheet...

Jennifer Rubin: Diminished

I don't know if, in any of my previous 3,910 posts, if I ever devoted one to another blogger.  Well, perhaps then it is time for something new...

Jennifer Rubin was possibly my favorite blogger anywhere when she was writing over at Contentions, the go-to site for conservative Jewish thought.  Her analysis of world affairs, the state of Israel, the Bush administration and their Democratic opponents were amongst the most adroit on the web.

Her move to the Washington Post was well deserved, and she continued making the thoughtful conservative argument before a hostile crowd, whose commentary on her pieces were limited to profanity, inanity, and liberal make-believe words like "Stupid Rethuglicans!".

But is has been in her "coverage" of the Republican primaries where she has gone a bit off-track.  She's an unrepentant Mitt Romney booster, but her savage attacks on the competing candidates have been almost without precedent in the blogging community.

I got pissed off early, when she ruthlessly tore apart Rick Perry upon his entrance into the race, but when he imploded, I had to admit to myself she might have been on to something.  Her attacks on Newt Gingrich echo mine, so I have no quarrel there.  And I concur with Jen's assessment that Rick Santorum might not win more than a handful of states, either. 

So since I seem to be in agreement with her, what's my beef?  Well, first it is the vicious nature of her attacks, where she comes off more as a third-rate blogger than the first-class intellectual that I believe her to be.  Newt and Rick are not viable candidates, but they have each contributed something to the conversation that will wind up being worthwhile.  Mitt will not win without some of Rick's social conservatism, nor will he win unless he takes it directly to the president and the media a al Newt.

But the biggest change in her attitude has been her attacks on those who dare criticize her opinion.  The WSJ's James Taranto offers this unsettling tidbit:

You may remember that last month the New York Times's Charles Blow blocked this columnist on Twitter. After we published yesterday's column, we discovered that Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post had done the same, and for the same reason: because we had pointed out the logical shortcoming of her appeal to her own authority based on her identity (in her case as a woman, in his as a black person).

If it's impolite to subject a commentator's public words to logical scrutiny, we suppose we're one rude SOB. Twitter is a social medium, and no one is under any obligation to socialize with us. But the point here is that the practitioners of identity politics frequently are unable to deal with challenges to their views by either modifying them or defending them reasonably. What exactly is liberating about that?
So Jennifer is now accepting no criticism of her positions, even well-reasoned ones.  Epistemological closure, anyone?

But even worse, she has turned to left-wing style insults against those with whom she disagrees - and who are unable to respond:

Weak. With the atrocious spelling of the keyboard-mashing basement Lefty...

Jen, I want you back.  The ruthless intellectual I had a brain-crush on, not the bomb-throwing Romney partisan you've become.  Don't sacrifice your powers of reason and argument for the sake of one man.  They are more valuable, in the long term, then he is.

Save yourself, and in that way, you might wind up helping us all.

"What's Wrong With Shark Fin Soup"?

Good question.  The answer should be, "nothing".  But in California, where liberal morality is legislated and codified perhaps more than any other locale in America, it is an illegal dish.

Currently, there are only nine restaurants in California serving this illicit delicacy.  So guess where Barack Obama went to eat while on a fundraising tour of San Francisco?

Via the SF Chronicle:

President Barack Obama, who signed the Shark Conservation Act into law last month, apparently didn't check out the menu before he made a surprise visit this week to a Chinatown restaurant that is among a handful still serving shark fin soup, a delicacy that has been outlawed in California.
The Great Eastern restaurant, a Chinatown landmark in San Francisco, has a $48 bowl of braised shark fin soup on its menu...

The New York Times shows some irritation at the Chronicle for ratting out the president:

Now, Mr. Obama didn’t buy or eat the soup. He stuck to dumplings, dumplings and more dumplings — the president is not known as a hugely adventurous eater. But that didn’t stop The San Francisco Chronicle from putting a photo of the president at the restaurant on its front page, accompanied by a caption that noted, pointedly, that he “signed the Shark Conservation Act” yet still went to the restaurant that serves the banned soup.

Now, now, ladies, simmer down. The Chronicle was quick to note the diners shrieked Obama;s name, while the Times repeats Jay Carney's claim that the president didn't study the menu that closely. So relax, bottom line is, you're still singing the praises of The One, and that's the important thing...

But was Obama really ignorant of the menu? Or could this be just another wink to his elitist brethren, letting them know that whatever crazy laws he signs into effect, they won't apply to either his monied favorites or the party faithful?

Seems like that might be the basis of the petulant outburst at the NYT.  It's a secret code, don't you know, and the Chronicle leaked the key...

Unless, of course, Obama fancies himself as a black version of Carmine "Jimmy the Toucan" Sabatini, out of The Freshman:

Carmine - also known as "Jimmy The Toucan" - is not only a Mafia figure, he runs the Fabulous Gourmet Club, an illicit and nomadic establishment, never holding its festivities in the same place twice, where for enormous prices endangered animals are served as the main course, specially prepared by Larry London. Clark is told that "for the privilege of eating the very last of a species," a million dollars is charged.

"...and send the..tee hee..'soup special' out the back...got another 'fundraiser' tonight..."

Bruce Springsteen: Obama's Bitch-Boy Goes Dumb

He's a big Obama supporter, but won't come out and publicly campaign for him this time.  What's the matter, "Boss"?  Feeling a little guilty about the fascism you helped bring to town?

Springsteen said he still supports Obama but expressed disappointment in his handling of the job market and home foreclosures and disapproved of the attention Obama paid to corporations rather than the middle class.

“I would like to have seen more activism in job creation sooner than it came. I would like to have seen people helped out, seen some of these [home] foreclosures stopped somehow,” Springsteen said.

Springsteen said Obama was “more friendly to corporations than I thought he would be, [and] there’s not as many middle-class or working-class voices heard in the administration as I thought there would be.”

Interestingly, Springsteen first endorsed Obama at one of the candidate's lower ebbs, when his remarks about small-town "bitter clingers" came to light.  One would have thought Springsteen would have defended the people he sung about - who also made up the majority of his fan base - but instead, he defended the man who attacked them:

At the moment, critics have tried to diminish Senator Obama through the exaggeration of certain of his comments and relationships. While these matters are worthy of some discussion, they have been ripped out of the context and fabric of the man's life and vision, so well described in his excellent book, Dreams of My Father, often in order to distract us from discussing the real issues: war and peace, the fight for economic and racial justice, reaffirming our Constitution, and the protection and enhancement of our environment.

But as it turned out, Obama meant every nasty word he said - just ask the folks who would be working on the Keystone Pipeline, or those small-town Catholics whose faith is being torn to shreds, along with the Constitution that had once protected it. And is there anyone left who actually believes that Obama really wrote "Dreams of My Father"?  Will the last rube please turn out the light on the way out?

Well, speaking of rubes...the Boss blew it.  But rather than admit that he perpetuated a fraud upon his fan base, who are undoubtedly worse off than they were three years ago, he makes some noises about being "disappointed "but still "supportive", all while urging fans to buy his new album.

Just on principle, Bruce, I'm gonna pirate it off the net, and pass it along.  Being that you are in fact part of the 1%  - who cheats his way out of paying his fair share of Jersey taxes - wouldn't you agree that some "economic justice" is in order?


More of Springsteen's liberal douchebaggery here, and over here...

Chris Christie Vetoes Same-Sex Marriage Bill

...as he has long promised.  Love the lede:

Same-sex marriage proponents were dealt a setback Friday, though not an unexpected one, when Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would let gay couples marry.

Of course, one might equally say that "traditional marriage advocates won a victory Friday", but since even straight news (no pun intended) is delivered from the left-hand side, the issue is framed rather, ah , "liberally"...

More:

The Republican governor had long promised a veto. He said changes to the marriage law should be done only if approved by voters through a statewide vote, not through an act by lawmakers.
Democrats, who control both houses of the Legislature, said there would be no referendum, arguing that the rights of minority groups should not be put to a popular vote.

Well, that's consistent, at least.  Part of the allure of power -  for liberals -  is the creation of/destruction of certain rights depending on a group's support for progressive dogma.  Just ask the Catholics...

But what is this all really about?

Democrats noted that they have until Jan. 14, 2014, to take an override vote. Christie’s term as governor expires one week after that.

Politics.  Gays will get their "right" to marry if it is a winning election issue for the Left.  If polling moves the other way, progressive will drop they gay agenda quicker than you can say Barack Hussein Obama...

Scott Brown Shows Some Guts, Gets Some Glory...

When Scott Brown started going wobbly on his conservative principles, the electorate went wobbly on him.  Why elect a half-liberal when Massachusetts is chock-full of the real deal?  But Brown drew the line on the Obama Administration's HHS contraceptive/abortion mandate, and went on the attack against the Left, and his unofficial 2012 rival, the detestable Elizabeth Warren:

One of our most fundamental rights as a people is the freedom of religion. It was right here in Plymouth, Massachusetts that pilgrims from Europe established a colony because of religious persecution at home.

Now, it is Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren who has assumed the mantle of oppressor. She and her allies on the left are dictating to Catholics and other people of faith that they must do as they are told when it comes to health care or face the consequences, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

The HuffPo:

Brown is a co-sponsor of an amendment to the Affordable Care Act by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) that would allow employers to exclude any health service coverage they claim would violate their religious or moral convictions. Warren has denounced the bill, which she said would deny basic health care to families.

That's some logic set you've got there, Elizabeth. Fairly typical of what Harvard produces these days, I reckon. Can I answer you with Glenn Reynolds' now-famous rejoinder?

It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying “What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!"

"Why have you forced this wretched yet incredibly tasty and fulfilling meat down my throat, oh mighty Barack Hussein?"

How in good conscience can Elizabeth Warren deny women of any religion the right to access a "bacon bra?"

So how has the people of the great liberal state of Massachusetts responded to what Warren has called an "extremist" position by Scott Brown?

Republican Scott Brown (49 percent) has a 9-point lead over Democrat Elizabeth Warren (40 percent), according to a Suffolk University/7NEWS (WHDH-Boston) poll of likely general election voters in Massachusetts. Nine percent were undecided, and 2 percent would choose someone else.

Brown also showed significant leads over two other potential Democratic candidates, besting Marisa DeFranco 55 percent to 22 percent and Jim King 57 percent to 21 percent....

In the popularity contest, Brown recorded a 52 percent favorable rating and a 28 percent unfavorable rating, compared to Warren’s 35 percent favorable and 28 percent unfavorable rating.

Looks like the people know an extremist when they see one.  Don't go wobbly, Scott...

Interesting that the Huffington Post piece links claims a tie in this particular Senate race, and links to an older poll. But did you notice that the media has gone a bit quiet lately on the HHS contraceptive/abortion mandate, and aren't trumpeting new pro-Obama polls every five minutes?

I wonder why...?

Joseph P. Kennedy's Resume Not Quite "Stellar"...

...no matter how hard the media tries to convince you.  He's a legacy nomination for Congress in Massachusetts, with little to recommend him but his name.  Interesting how the doyennes of liberal democracy continue to try to turn the nation into a dynastic Republic.  As long as the names involved are Obama, Clinton, and Kennedy.

Anyway, here's Eleanor Clift, in an article being highlighted  by the despicable Yahoo! news page:

This latest Kennedy, while drawing some mockery in Massachusetts, has a stellar résumé: Stanford, Peace Corps, Harvard Business School, district attorney’s office in Massachusetts. His twin brother, Matthew, equally accomplished, is serving in the Obama administration. Their father, Joseph Kennedy II, was elected to the House in 1986, where he served with Frank on the Financial Services Committee. They worked together on affordable housing...

Hmmm...Stanford and Harvard Business School? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Wall Street and the government - the two biggest drivers of the economic nightmare we find ourselves in - manned top to bottom by people with the identical pedigree? The Ivy League has, for the past two decades, taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from men and women to give them a slip of paper guaranteeing their credentials. Based on their results - and the wreckage all around us -  that "guarantee" is worth less than the sheepskin it is printed on.

His stint in the DA's office was unremarkable, and his time in the Peace Corps was spent in the Dominican Republic - which has plenty of fun available on the side for a man with American dollars.

"That limo better have a hot chai latte waiting for me inside, or it's your ass!  And speaking of your ass..."

or:

A frustrated Conan O'Brien walks out of another writer's meeting...

Clift praises Joey's brother as "equally accomplished", and points to his service in the Obama White House as evidence of such.  Again, think of  the state of the nation and decide for yourself the value of that particular endorsement.  And the fact that his father worked with Barney Frank on "affordable housing"?  How has that worked out for you?  Seen your property values lately?

Seems like Joe P. Kennedy is an intellectual waif, a resume-padder more interested in style than substance.  In other words, a typical Democrat with a famous last name.  But hey - if you can elect a president based on the crease of his pants...why not?

Incidentally, should Jeb Bush decide to jump in as a presidential candidate at a brokered Republican convention, what do you think Eleanor Clift would have to say about that?  How many times would the phrases "nepotism", "inexperienced", and "1%" be used in her first piece about the former two-term Florida governor?

Yeah, exactly...

Connecting The Keystone Pipeline With The Abortion Mandate

The chess pieces seemed to be moving about the board in an incoherent fashion.  But suddenly, as the attack commences, the strategy becomes clear, and the motives of each previous moves are unveiled.

Killing the Keystone pipeline and intentionally antagonizing American Catholics seems like political insanity.  So might it appear to the player whose opponent sacrifices a rook or (ahem) a bishop for what seems to be little value. But if you focus on the entire board, well...what you might do it..gulp.

More Than Just a Touch of Malice, the piece is called:

...there is no good reason that any student of public policy can cite for doing what the President did. Cancelling the pipeline will not delay or stop the extraction of oil from the tar sands in Alberta, and the pipeline itself would pose no environmental threat. If the President’s decision had any purpose, it was symbolic – an indication to all that he cared not one whit about the plight of the white working class and that he was capable of punishing those whom he does not like and more than willing to do so.

In 2008, when he first ran for the Presidency, Barack Obama posed as a moderate most of the time. This time, he is openly running as a radical. His aim is to win a mandate for the fundamental transformation of the United States that he promised in passing on the eve of his election four years ago and that he promised again when he called his administration The New Foundation. In the process, he intends to reshape the Democratic coalition – to bring the old hypocrisy to an end, to eliminate those who stand in the way of the final consolidation of the administrative entitlements state, to drive out the faithful Catholics once and for all, to jettison the white working class, and to build a new American regime on a coalition of highly educated upper-middle class whites, feminists, African-Americans, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, and those belonging to the public-sector unions. To Americans outside this coalition, he intends to show no mercy.


Now that the attack is on us, can we re-organize our defenses in time to save our king and queen?  Or is it too late, have we been fighting the wrong battle all along, and can we only delay the inevitable victory of the champion of the Progressives, and concede to what new rules he applies to the game?

If the Republicans do not open their eyes to reality quickly, and fight the enemy they are actually facing rather than the one they wish to face, all will be lost, regardless of the nominee...

Nanny Bloomberg Resorts To Kicking Dogs...

It doesn't matter that it is a tradition going back over thirty years.   It is irrelevant that, despite its outward appearance as an etiquette breach, it is actually an minor event in itself enjoyed by all who participate.  It doesn't matter it is reported on by all the media in a positive light and usually makes a light-hearted top-story in all of the New York city dailies.

What matters is that this one-meal-a-year occurrence is in violation of the strict guidelines of the Nanny State as established by his Lordship, Mayor Michael Bloomberg I.  So in march the armies of the liberal tyrant - the bureaucrats - and thus end the fun that harmed no one:

A New York tradition more than three decades old ended yesterday when the Health Department declared that starting next year, Sardi’s restaurant can no longer invite the winner of the Westminster Dog Show to a special dinner.
Malachy (pictured), the pint-sized Pekingese, enjoyed a platter of chicken and rice — but his successors won’t be as lucky.

“We can’t be expected to just roll over for the champ. Our primary concern is making sure people and pets follow the doggone rules — ideally without whining or begging,” quipped city Health Department spokesman John Kelly.

Enemy of the (nanny) state...

Restaurant owner Max Klimavicius pointed out that his special guest was served in a private room on the second floor and said he was sorry to see the “ritual’’ end.

Malachy joins another well-known pet in “nanny state’’ exile. Matilda the Algonquin hotel cat, who had been free to roam, had to be put on a leash and banned from the lobby lounge because food is served there...

You vote for Democrats, you hand your life over to folks like John Kelly. You asked for, America.  So shut the f*ck up, and take it in the mouth:

Another Archbishop Takes On Obama...

I'm impressed at how well these guys are calling the president out.  I've probably gotten so used to the rabbis bending over and taking whatever offense Barack decides to dish out to the Jews that I thought it was typical of religious leaders of all faiths.

My mistake, I apologize.  New York's Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan made his disgust clear (I would have to think in the Catholic canon, "betrayal" is a pretty strong word), and now Chicago's Archbishop Francis Cardinal George calls it as he sees it:

This week I’ve been with the bishops of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana on pilgrimage to the tombs of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome. After praying at the tombs and celebrating Mass, we went to visit the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, Pope Benedict XVI.... Because we were on pilgrimage in Rome, there was occasion to strengthen the unity of the bishops of our region with the Holy Father.

Even in the midst of this strengthened unity, news of attempts to weaken the unity between the bishops and the faithful have been reported. This is the first time in the history of the United States that a presidential administration has purposely tried to interfere in the internal working of the Catholic Church, playing one group off against another for political gain. What isn’t always understood is that the Bishops of the Church make no attempt to speak for all Catholics; they never have. The Bishops speak for the Catholic and apostolic faith, and those who hold that faith gather around them. Others disperse. That dynamic is clear in history and became clear also in the official visit to Rome that the Bishops of our region made this week.

Our visit has reminded us that the Church enjoys divine assistance even when she is being attacked....

That last word is the one politicians have been afraid to use, despite it being the most accurate adjective of the president's recent actions in regards to the Church, and State. Our officials tremble in fear of Caesar, but the men of faith know when they are seeing a pretender to the throne, the new rising of the Morning Star, and appear to be sharpening their spears for the battle ahead.

Not a moment too soon. Looks like God may still smile upon America after all.

ObamaCare: The (Too) Graphic Novel !

Always one to take a tip from Glenn Reynolds, I followed his link to Amazon to check out the list of top-selling graphic novels.  An while I was certainly not surprised to see Diary of a Wimpy Kid and The Walking Dead crowding the top spots, I was quite taken aback by #5:

Written by a man who proudly proclaims his involvement in creating ObamaCare on seemingly every other page, it is described thusly:

You won’t have to worry about going broke if you get sick.
We will start to bring the costs of health care under control.
And we will do all this while reducing the federal deficit.

That is the promise of the Affordable Care Act. But from the moment President Obama signed the bill into law in 2010, a steady and mounting avalanche of misinformation about the ACA has left a growing majority of Americans confused about what it is, why it’s necessary, and how it works. If you’re one of them, buy this book. From how to tame the twin threats of rising costs and the increasing number of uninsured to why an insurance mandate is good for your health, Health Care Reform dispels false fears by arming you with facts.

Surely, I thought, this is camp. Or kitsch. Or parody.  But shockingly, it is serious.

It is #1 in a number of Amazon categories.  But is really being purchased by people who wish to "educate" themselves about the health care system?  Or is it being bought up by the Left, to evangelize, the way missionaries snap up bibles?

Another possibility:  Is this too-graphic novel actually being grabbed by farsighted memorabilia buffs, who see the value of a "We Like Ike" pin or a "Whip Inflation Now!" button, and want to invest in a piece of what is about to be America's socialist past, before it goes away forever?

And yet the reviews are fairly positive for this piece of pulp propaganda, although there are a few who refuse to get with the program and insist on resisting Dear Leader:

But rather than illuminate, Gruber demagogues the most critical issues by recycling - without challenge - virtually every canard employed by advocates of so-called "progressive" health care reform in the guise of fearsome monsters ultimately defeated by PPACA. In doing this Gruber reveals that, far from being the objective purveyor of fact, he is at best a cheerleader for the form of government-driven health care reform in which he has been an active participant....

 To paraphrase another reviewer, if Leni Riefenstahl wrote a comic book, it would be along the same moral lines as Jonathan Gruber's egotistical work.

Added bonus for haters:  Look who makes a cameo...!