An even more appropriate “Question and Answer of the Day”

Courtesy of one of Michelle Malkin’s readers, we now have an even more appropriate “Sign of the Day”.

(This one is photoshopped, but I say should be installed by someone soon!)

YES!

Question of the Day — and the Answer

Miss me yet?

from NPR:

There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: “Miss Me Yet?”….

……Mary Teske, the general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising reports, “The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message.

Miss George W Bush yet?

Let’s see……

• Bush loves America; Obama loathes America
• Bush was passionate about our military and their service; Obama believes they air-raided innocents and that the military is ripe for social experimentation
• Bush was a decent man who made mistakes; Obama is an arrogant, elitist who blames Bush and others for his mistakes
• Bush was thick-skinned amidst the vile and, many times, irrational hatred spewed at him by the Left; Obama is thin-skinned and easily riled and defiant in the face of those who simply oppose his policies, including American citizens.
• Bush led us through 9-11, two wars, and more with a $400 billion deficit in his 8th year (and a Dem Congress setting the budget); Obama has accomplished nothing positive in the economy but has quadrupled Bush’s deficit in one year, with an even higher one predicted this year.
• Bushes family and background  includes a WWII hero, self-made businessmen, legitimate admittance and good grades at Ivy League school, and freedom-loving people; Obama’s admittance to an Ivy League school is questionable and no grades have been disclosed, Obama’s family includes Marxists, Communists, and African tyrannical leaders — his background also includes a radical minister, domestic terrorists, and a childhood that didn’t bring him to the mainland of the United States until he was 18 years old!
• Bush is a devout born-again Christian who has been open about his Christian faith; Obama claims he is Christian while denouncing America as a country originating from Christianity and Obama believes the Muslim call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”
• Bush held firm with his pro-life stance; Obama has been a proponent of partial birth abortion and infanticide.
• Bush liberated millions in Iraq and Afghanistan;  Obama’s goal is to enslave millions of Americans to a gargantuan government.
• Bush appointed two constitutionalists to the Supreme Court; Obama appointed a “wise Latino” woman to the Supreme Court who doesn’t believe in the timelessness of the Constitution.

I could go on an on…..

Do I miss George W Bush, warts and all?  Damn right I do.

(H/T: HotAir Pundit)

You’ve got to “hand” it to Palin

The lefty blogosphere and left-leaning “objective” media outlets are all atwitter over Sarah Palin’s use of her hand as a note pad during Saturday’s Tea Party Convention Speech.

(View Palin’s Tea Party speech here.  She received good reviews for taking down Obama’s policies and clearly outlining the issues this country faces.)

For the speech, Sarah Palin wrote down a few little reminders on her hand and it can be seen in some videos and pics of the event.  From FoundingBloggers.com:

Somehow the left believes this is unprofessional and scandalous.  Of course a Far Left President, whom they support, fully relies on his teleprompter at 99.9% of his public speaking engagements.  And, unlike the soaring rhetoric in his campaign speeches, most of his telemprompter-advised speeches today fall flat with arrogance, lack of emotion, and ego.

Of course Palin shows her sense of humor and completely runs over the illegitimate and stupid complaints from the left.  The day after the speech, while campaigning for Rick Perry, Palin writes “Hi, Mom” on her hand and nonchalantly makes sure it is shown in the pictures. (FYI: These pics are not photoshopped.)

True to form, the sickening left, of course, takes this episode to its misogynistic sexual level.  From Legal Insurrection:

I’m talking about the impulse in the Democratic base to use a non-sexual situation to sexualize and demean a female politician. Hillary had to deal with it. And there is a long history of sexist treatment of Palin, including the Newsweek cover last November.

Today, the story was a play on Palin giving a “hand job”:

• TMZ – Sarah Palin’s Hand Gets Job Done‎
• Democratic Underground – I say we call it the “Sarah Palin Hand Job”
• DailyKos – Sunday Talks Liveblog–Sarah Palin Hand Job Edition

There’s also plenty of play on Twitter for the “Palin hand job” theme. Blue Lyon has collected some foul comments from popular “progressive” blogs and forums, and sums it up with this:

Way to go progs. The “Progressive” blogosphere needs to get their heads out of their junior high asses (no offense meant to junior high kids) and get smart. But I am not holding my breath.

The Democratic base has revealed itself once again. Thanks Sarah.

Palin wins the round…with humor and a result that exposes the Leftists for what they are.

(H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Ronald Reagan would have been 99 years old today

Ronald Reagan would have been 99 years old today, February 6, 2010.

Oh, I long to again have a Constitution-respecting president who loves America! 

We love you Ronald Reagan and all you did for the cause of freedom in the world and America.

Video of Reagan’s first inaugural address.  Some choice excerpts from his speech:

“We are nation that has a government and not the other way around….and that makes us special.”

“The federal government did not create the states, the states created the federal Government.”

“Government can and must provide opportunity not smother it.”

“We are too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams.”

 

(H/T: Ace of Spades)

UPDATED: Thoughts on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy

The Obama administration is going full court press on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) policy for gays serving in the military. Of course, Congress must pass a new law to overturn it, but Obama is also directing Robert Gates and military leaders to do everything they can to work around the existing law until, God forbid, Congress changes the law.

As a refresher summary on the DADT policy:

The 1993 law enacted by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President Clinton prevents homosexuals from serving openly. The policy also prohibits the military from asking recruits on the front end if they are homosexual.

It is also pertinent to note (my emphasis):

It [DADT] is, by the way, similar to the way heterosexual relations are treated as well.  Men stay away from women altogether in uniform.  It isn’t practiced, it isn’t discussed, it is frowned upon – in theory.  This isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen, any more than DADT would imply that gay sexual relations don’t happen.  It does mean that there are certain requirements in the military that comport with good discipline, and they are enforced to the extent possible. 

……But in the end, DADT has been a mainstay of operations for a while now, and revoking this policy might mean more than a little change to the military….

…..For a branch like the Marines which has as their cornerstone removing differences and enforcing sameness (or at least relegating them to unimportant status – e.g., no one can remove language barriers), it probably will have a significant affect.

So as a part of discipline, “open” heterosexuality is also something that the military frowns upon.   I see no problem with that, just as I see the DADT policy as something that enforces discipline among military members.  And the argument for promoting “sameness” rather than differences is a valid and important issue to address when speaking of the repeal of DADT.

And let’s not forget the bottom line–the US Military has a mission to defend this country from enemies foreign and domestic.  That is the ultimate goal.   Issues and policies that can hinder or overshadow that goal should not be taken lightly or decided upon by the whims of “social change” agents.

 Obama had this to say in the State of the Union speech on January 27:

Obama declared during the Jan. 27 State of the Union address he would work this year “with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

Well, as is his usual schtick, Obama’s making a statement that is simply not true in order push his point of view.  The DADT policy doesn’t permit the open discussion or practicing of homosexuality.  But any homosexual may serve in the military and they do.  So it is disingenuous to tout the repeal of DADT based on a lie that gays can’t serve in the military.  This line is regularly used by those who wish to repeal DADT.

In addition, many who serve have no problem serving alongside homosexuals, just as many have no problem serving alongside women.  However, many of those same people are opposed to doing away with the DADT policy.

Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal writes:

 It’s appropriate to convey the thoughts of at least a few contacts active in the military.  My contacts – who by the way aren’t opposed in principle to the idea of gays serving alongside them – seem to pan the idea pretty much across the board.

It is also interesting to note that many in the military are against changing the DADT policy.  And many say they will not re-enlist or continue serving in the military if the DADT law is changed to promote homosexuality in the military (my emphasis):

A Military Times survey of subscribers released in December 2008 found that 58 percent of active military personnel oppose repealing the current policy. Additionally, if the policy is overturned, nearly 10 percent said, “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” while another 14 percent said, “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” A 2006 Zogby poll found only 26 percent of military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan supported overturning the current policy.

So, it clearly seems that vast majorities of those serving in the military are against the repeal of DADT.   Why does it seem reasonable to repeal it if that is the case?

And just like many social issues of today, why is it so ”urgent” to do this now?  Our military has existed for well over 200 years.   It is quite arguable that America, for many years, has had one of the best fighting forces on earth.    And it has all been achieved without mandating by law that the sexual preferences of military members must be out in the open in the name of “integrity” and “rights”.  

Just as the culture, society, traditions and founding documents of this country have sustained us for over 200 years without so-called “gay marriage”, the purposes and mission of the US Military and its members have excelled for over 200 years without open homosexuality.

Why is it so darned important now — in 2010 — in the midst of two wars to heap a huge left-leaning social change onto our military, particularly when those serving honorably don’t want it? 

I believe that DADT should not be repealed.  I do understand that decent people can disagree on this policy.   It is not hateful or bigoted for those with strong religious beliefs or lengthy military backgrounds, as two examples, to oppose gays serving openly in the military.   And it is not unreasonable for me to understand the viewpoint of those who may believe that the repealing DADT is worthwhile.

But, as in the gay marriage debate, many who push for the gay agenda, do so by getting personal and calling the opposition names instead of understanding the values for which they may be espousing.

Good example comes from blogger CDR Salamander.  CDR Salamander is for repealing DADT, but can see where Admiral Mullen’s statement on the subject offers nothing positive, but rather makes its personal by accusing the oppostition of being without “integrity”.  From CDR Salamander:

I support the repeal of DADT – but I also think that those who want to keep it are on balance people with the best interests of our nation at heart. Good people can disagree on issues of substance.

I don’t know what he was trying to do – but Admiral Mullen just made it personal, and that is sad.

“No matter how I look at the issue,” Mullen said, “I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” Noting that he was speaking for himself and not for the other service chiefs, Mullen added: “For me, it comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

I suppose that the very Navy that has promoted the Admiral to a high rank, has been without integrity for its entire existence then?   What does that make Admiral Mullen for spending his entire career in leadership of an institution that, in his words, is lacking integrity?   And as for the lying — DADT does not require anyone to lie.  There is no asking, so there is no lying.

Herschel Smith at Captain’s Journal has a view against repealing DADT….and he doesn’t engage in personal attacks against those who think otherwise.  His reasoning makes sense:

Now for my own views.  I thought about this position within the context of the only exception that I can think of, namely, marriage.  Men and women are allowed to be married in the military.  But marriage is not performed by the Marine Corps or Army.  It is performed and recognized within and by states which have laws that govern such things.  Imposing homosexual marriage on a branch of the service just to say that there is no exception to the way gays and heterosexuals are treated under DADT is a false dilemma.  It is imposing a foreign problem on the military – a consideration that should be irrelevant to the conversation.

In a republic such as ours, laws are changed by legislative process which usually begins with advocacy.  One group or another wants a law changed or enacted, and that group presses the issue.  If gays want to marry, changing DADT isn’t the way to go.  Changing laws is the way to go.  No gay marriage (insofar as DADT applies) in the military (similar to no gay marriage in most states)  is an output (or outcome) of the debate, not an input to it.

In summary, DADT is the perfect solution to the issue.  There is to be no sexual relations with other service members, and no discussion of it.  This is true regardless of orientation.  DADT is a subset of that regulation, not an exception to it.  It doesn’t prevent gays from serving in the military.  Its revocation would serve no useful function, and therefore TCJ opposes its revocation unless someone can come up with something better than the false mantra that some service members must “lie about who they are.”

I’m sure this is a debate that will rage on this year.  But regardless of where you stand on the issue, you must ask yourself, “Why now and why make major social change in the midst of two wars, not to mention the pressing issues at home?”   Makes no sense.

UPDATE 2/8/10: From the blogger Villainous Company comes some interesting statistics on discharges from the military over the course of the last 30 years.  Result:

Note that in no year did DADT discharges reach even one-tenth of one percent of the active forces.

If all the losses since 1994 were combined into a single year, they still don’t come to even 1% of the total force structure.

At Villainous Company they also compared the DADT stat of  less than 1/10th of 1 percent for discharges to non-deployable women because of pregnancy.  Depending on the branch of armed services 5-26% of women are non-deployable due to pregnancy.

So VC asks the legitimate question of the military commanders who believe the military would be so weakened by continuing DADT:

If the military has decided it can easily tolerate having anywhere from 5-26% of our forces in a non-deployable status due to pregnancy, why are losses of under 1/10th of one percent unsupportable?

The answer is because repealing DADT is 99.99999% political and an attempt at further social experimentation in the military at the expense of troop cohesiveness, enlistment, and retention.

Iran Launches Worms Into Space

Gee, I saw just the headline for this story and I thought Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Frank, Emanuel and Gibbs had agreed to a free ride on an Iranian rocket.

Actually, I think Pelosi thought they said free ride on a 737 Military Jet and was the first to volunteer.

And Iran asked Obama “Wanna take a rocket up?”  and Obama thought they said, “Wanna come and talk it up?”  Obama quickly volunteered for the chance for talks with Iran.

Seriously, as Iran tells it, here is the story:

In what seemed designed as a display of advancing missile technology, Iran said on Wednesday that it had test-fired a rocket into space carrying living organisms — a rat, two turtles and worms, according to the official Press TV broadcaster.

The launch of what was described as a Kavoshgar-3 missile, capable of carrying satellites, came as the Tehran regime is facing a series of challenges.

Press TV said Wednesday that the Kavoshgar, or Explorer, missile was the third of its type to be launched space since February 2008, and was carrying an experimental capsule to transfer telemetric data, live pictures and other information to Earth. A second Kavoshgar was launched in November 2008, Press TV said. The model launched on Wednesday was described as an updated version of the earlier rockets.

From StopTheACLU.com…not impressed (my emphasis):

A search around the Internet finds not one story that can offer any verification of the launch. But, kudos to Iran if they managed to launch a few tiny living creatures into space, over 40 years beyond the time when the U.S. put Alan Shepard, Jr. into space.

Quote of the Day – Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (R)

Today’s best quote comes House Rep. Paul Ryan (R) from Wisconsin. 

Ryan is talking about the budget proposal released by Obama today.  He clearly gets the idea across that the Obama administration/Democrats and Republican debates are no longer about differences in how much money to spend (or not), but a clear case of two contrasting visions of America.  Ryan says this (my emphasis):

President Obama’s budget “is not like most budgets, with some tax-code tinkering and spending.” No, he says, “this budget is a choice. We are about to make a decision whose consequences will last for generations.”

“This budget presents a choice of two futures,” Ryan says. “Don’t look at the president’s rhetoric, look at his actions. His substance implies a different reality. Not only is this budget worse than the last one, but it triples our debt within ten years, features gushers of tax increases, and relies on some partisan commission to do the heavy lifting on fiscal policy after the next election. Make no mistake: This is a budget aimed to advance the administration’s philosophy and ideology. By increasing taxes and letting the country spiral into debt, this budget is a firm step toward transforming America into a collectivist society overseen by a social-welfare state.”….

……This budget is about more than specific programs or policies. It is really about the American idea, and whether we want to move towards a European-style welfare state. I know that seems like those are big words, but those are the stakes. It is hard to come to another conclusion when you look at our debt and how we are spending. We are in a very dire fiscal situation.”….

……We believe that the individual is the nucleus of American life, and they see the government in that role. That is our big difference.”

“This is a choice of two futures,” he reiterates. “It’s not too late to make the right decision.”

Truer words have never been spoken.  And it is good to finally see some Republican leaders cut to the chase about Obama’s intentions to change this country. 

I certainly hope that Obama/Dem agenda can be stopped.  Our way of life, values, and freedom depend on it.

(H/T: Pajamas Media, Ed Driscoll)

Obama Budget Fashion Chic: Budget Freeze-OUT; Unsustainable Record Deficits-IN

Obama’s new budget is coming out today.  Remember the spending freezes he touted in last week’s State of the Union address?

Well, Obama meant it….for about 6 days.  But now, two words come to my mind….YOU…LIE.

Today, Obama’s new budget is being released.  From Heritage.org, some budget analysis (my emphasis):

President Barack Obama will submit a $3.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2011 to Congress today. One might hope that given last year’s $1.4 trillion budget deficit was an all-time high and the President promised a spending “freeze” in last week’s State of the Union, this budget might signal a change in direction from the White House. No such luck. President Obama’s new budget is full of billions of dollars in new spending for failed government programs, higher taxes on American families and businesses, and deficit spending for as far as the eye can see.

So, Obama is doubling down on his massive spending, big government programs, and his assault on capitalism.  And, in classic Obama fashion, the lie of  spending cuts is accompanied by budget manipulations:

At the very least, the budget document President Obama is submitting today exposes his spending “freeze” promise for the fraud that it is. As outlined last week, the administration would halt spending increases for only a $447 billion sliver of our total budget, with a total of $15 billion to be saved. That is less than half a percent off of last year’s spending. Worse, this isn’t even an across-the-board spending freeze; it is an aggregate one. So “spending cuts” in parts of the budget are immediately channeled to others. For example, even though the federal government does not need any money for the Census next year, President Obama counts the $5 billion spent this year as a “spending cut” that can be immediately spent on other government programs, such as a 16% increase in Department of Education funding, a 6.8% increase in Department of Energy funding, and increases for ineffective Health and Human Services programs like Head Start and sex education.

And for your viewing pleasure…and to counter the libs and Obama who blame Bush and Republicans for the deficits, a clear view of the financial damage Obama and Democrats are doing to our country now and for the forseeable future. 

(Source: American Spectator)

Democrats…the record deficits are all yours.  And unfortunately, because they are unsustainable, they will haunt this generation and others for decades if this spending is not turned around.   

Is this the change you can believe in?

Quote of The Day – Tony Blair

Tony Blair (Source: The Daily Mail)

On Friday, Tony Blair was questioned during an Iraq hearing in the UK.  Some believe the questioning was meant to embarrass Tony Blair (kind of like the Obama administration putting KSM on trial in the States — to embarrass and convict George Bush in public 0pinion).

But Tony Blair stood his ground.  Blair is a friend to the US and understands, as GW Bush did, the threat that Iraq posed and the even greater threat that Iran now poses.

Blair’s quote, from the Daily Mail:

Mr Blair insisted: ‘This isn’t about a lie or a conspiracy or a deceit or a deception. It’s a decision.

‘And the decision I had to take was, given Saddam’s history, given his use of chemical weapons, given the over one million people whose deaths he had caused, given ten years of breaking UN resolutions, could we take the risk of this man reconstituting his weapons programmes or is that a risk that it would be irresponsible to take?

‘The decision I took – and frankly would take again – was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction we should stop him.’

…He warned that Iran’s nuclear weapons programme now poses an even greater threat.

And, in an apparent rebuke to Gordon Brown and Barack Obama, suggested that if he was still in power he would be championing military action.

The lefties in the US and UK have tried to brush Blair and Bush with some sort of lie/conspiracy meme with regards to the Iraq War.  Of course, multiple countries, the UN, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and many Democrats thought Saddam Hussein had WMD and said so.  Guess they were all in on the “conspiracy” and “lies”.

Prostesters (Source: The Daily Mail)

Ironically, the same type of people calling Blair a conspirator were outside on the streets during the hearing protesting Blair with “astroturf” signs that were all the same.  But no organizing or conspiracy there….nothing to see  at all….

Thanks, Tony Blair, for defending the right thing to do.

(H/T: Gateway Pundit)

Rush to Obama: “I’ll tell you, you are not a leader. You are an agitator and an organizer…”

Rush Limbaugh to Obama:  “I’ll tell you, you are not a leader. You are an agitator and an organizer”

Nail —- > Head.

Rush has penned a great letter to Obama that he read on his show today.  Audio here. 

Transcript below.  Here is the transcript on Rush’s site - (H/T: Gateway Pundit).  Read it all.  Rush is not holding back and is spot-on.

I penned a message to Obama that I would like to deliver now. Because Mr. Obama, I think it’s time we had a heart to heart talk. Let me be the father that you never had or never really knew, because I think you need some guidance. It’s time to man up. It’s time to grow up. That speech last night was an embarrassment. You couldn’t focus, you lashed out in all directions, you refused to accept responsibility for your own actions, and you were angry.

And he was, folks! He was mad. Being president is a big job. It’s a big responsibility. You wanted the position, Barack. You campaigned for it. You told the public to trust you with it, and they elected you — and you’re now president of the greatest country mankind has ever known, and yet you act like this was all coming to you, like you deserve it, that you’re better than the people you are supposed to serve and that you have no tolerance for debate or dissent. That’s not the way it works as president, Barack. We have a Constitution, we have checks and balances, we have separation of powers, we have states — and most of all, we have the people. You don’t get to impose your programs and policies on the nation and the people without our consent.

This is a representative republic, not a banana republic, and let me remind you: Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky are not our Founding Fathers. This is a nation built on individuality, built on liberty, free markets, and faith. Yet you, Barack, demand fidelity to a different belief system: A system that crushes individual initiative and free will. The president does not berate Supreme Court justices who are guests of the Congress and who have no ability to respond to your attacks. You’ve made such a mess of things, Barack, and it’s time to stop deluding yourself. It’s time to stop blaming others. You are delusional. You are delirious. It’s time for you to assume the responsibilities of a president rather than pretending to be one.

You’ve driven the nation’s debt over the edge. It is your responsibility to fix it now. Otherwise, our young people will have no future. You were wrong to grant terrorists constitutional rights. Even the libs in New York don’t want the trial there now! You, Mr. President, are endangering the security of this nation. Now fix it! Reverse course, and end the terrorists — all of them — back to Guantanamo Bay, where they belong. You are wrong to nationalize one industry after another from automobiles to banks. You are destroying competition and jobs. You need to stop what you were doing before million of more families go broke from your misguided policies. It’s not too late to stop this. I know you’re not going to stop it because last night you said you don’t quit, and I know what you mean.

You’re gonna keep plugging for the same agenda, which is going to destroy this country even more — which makes me think, Barack, that’s your objective. You know, Barack, unlike most presidents you’re dealing with a Congress that has super majorities in both houses, fellow Democrats. It amazes me that with all the talk about your ability to persuade and communicate, that you can’t even hold your own party members together anymore. Is that Bush’s fault, too? Is it is fault of the banks and the insurance companies and the lobbyists that you can’t keep your own Democrat Party unified — or is it a problem with your leadership, Barack, or lack of leadership? It’s the latter, Mr. President. I’ll tell you, you are not a leader. You are an agitator and an organizer, and a process guy, but you are not a leader. It is you who are doing something wrong.

The people in Virginia don’t like it. The people in New Jersey don’t like it. The people in Massachusetts don’t like it. The people in Massachusetts and all over the country have the ability to inform themselves outside of your sycophant press corps, and they are doing so. Members of your own governing majority don’t like what you are doing. I mean, this calls for some self-reflection and some circumspection. Has it occurred to you, Mr. President, even once that you’re not as cool as you think you are? Has it occurred to you that you are screwing up? And if it has, are you happy about that? Has it occurred to you that you have a great deal to learn and that you need to take your own measure, or are you Mr. Perfect? Are you God-sent?

Are you The One that you’ve been waiting for? See, I have a little concern there may be a psychological issue at play here. I don’t say this to demean you, Barack. I say it because I’m concerned. I mean, Tom Daschle was always “concerned” and I like the word. I’m concerned. You seem to have a whole lot of enemies, at least in your own mind. A partial list would include Fox News, insurance companies, banks, oil companies, the “special interests,” the Supreme Court, Republicans, talk show hosts, executives, anyone or any business that earns over $250,000 a year, mortgage companies, credit card companies — and the list goes on and on and on. You have the longest enemies list of anybody I’ve ever known.

These people are not your enemies, though, Barack. They are Americans. They are part of this country. They are part of what makes the nation work. You are not. You have nothing to do, and have had nothing to do, with this nation’s greatness. You can’t lay claim to greatness on any scale, not even rhetorical. But you have no direct relationship to the greatness of this country. You are damaging the possibility of further greatness. Nevertheless, like a bully, you continue to threaten all of these people. The Supreme Court, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Retail, talk show hosts, Fox News, the list goes on. You threaten anybody who does not agree with you. You try to intimidate them. You smear them. Your sycophantic media goes right along and carries your water. But this is not what presidents do…

Now all of the libs out there will persecute Rush for conveying his opinion about Obama very pointedly. Of course, those same libs are praising Obama today for a State of the Union Speech that was low on truth and respect and high in the amount of condescenscion Obama rained down on the American People, Congress, Republicans, Banks, Private Industry and the Supreme Court.

And there are those on the right who will wring their hands in worry about the “tone” of Rush’s words. You know…we don’t want to be like the Left are when berating George W. Bush at every turn.

But it must be remembered that when a strong statement is made about Obama, it is not the same as the lies that were perpetuated (and still are) about George W. Bush. Those lies encompassed false stories about Bush’s intentions for the war, his prosecution of the war, and almost everything Bush achieved while in office.

But, the BIG difference between what the Libs have done to Bush and what Rush has clearly stated to Obama is that the Libs had to lie about Bush. And then perpetuate the lies.

What Rush has laid out about Obama is becoming more and more clear to many Americans every day. Obama’s contempt for our country, its Constitution, its tradition and people who don’t praise his Far Left agenda is clear.
GW Bush has never had contempt for America or its people.

Thanks Rush…you said what I wish I’d said.