Yes, Obama’s a “historic” President all right….


This was too good and succinct not to pass on:

Yes, he’s historic, alright.

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government

• First President to Violatethe War Powers Act

• First President to Orchestratethe Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First President to Defy a Federal Judge’s Court Order to Cease Implementing the ‘Health Care Reform’
Law

• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party

• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on ‘Shovel-Ready’ Jobs — and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union
Supporters

• First President to Bypass
Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat

• First President to “Order
a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants
Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions

• First President to Demand
a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees

• First President to Terminate
America’s Ability to Put a Man into Space
.

• First President to Encourage
Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places

• First President to Have a Law
Signed By an ‘Auto-pen’ Without Being “Present”

• First President to Arbitrarily
Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It

• First President to Threaten
Insurance Companies if they Publicly Speak out on the Reasons for their Rate
Increases

• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a
Factory

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN,
etc.)

• First President to Withdraw
an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago

• First President to Fire
an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a
Corruption Case

• First President to Propose
an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to
Bid on Government Contracts

• First President to Golf
73 Separate Times in His First Two-and-a-Half Years in Office

But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.

Obama admin setting the stage for hacking away at military benefits


Obama has spent billions propping up public sector unions in the states and now wants to hack away at military retirement plans for savings.   Panetta is just Obama’s little puppet for accomplishing further erosion of our defense structure.

Defense Secretary Leon  Panetta said Tuesday that overhauling the military’s retirement benefits system is “the kind of thing you have  to consider.”

Consider for what?  Take slices out of military benefits so Obama can continue to spend us into oblivion?

Why, at this point, must the military be considered?

Why not cut out future stimulus, like the last Obama stimulus that propped state public sector unions and their plush benefit packages?

Why not reform Social Security, Medicare…and all of the other accounts that have been robbed by our politicians over the years?

No, it’s crucial that we hack away at the very people who put their lives on the line to defend this country.

I agree with Scales:

Retired Gen. Bob Scales called the proposal “a bad deal.”

“That’s why the military retirement system was structured the way it was  structured because war is a young man’s game,” he told Fox news. “We reward  those who sacrifice when they’re young. And the reward is when they retire, they  are given a decent retirement pay to carry them over the time they leave the  service, and this of course would just remove that.”

This administration disgusts me in almost every way.

For Obama, the military is not worthy of every dime they receive, they are better served to be used as tools when Obama needs them.

Before we cut into the benefits of the military, why doesn’t Obama lead on the “shared sacrifice” instead of creating armored campaign buses for the Magical Misery Tour, visiting wealthy vacation destinations during crucial economic times, or sending propaganda payout incentives to major internet companies — all on the taxpayer dime?

Little Miss “We have a right to disagree with any administration” now asks Obama administration critics “Whose side are you on”?


GAWD…this woman just disgusts me….I have never understood how a so-called lawyer who rode the coattails of her husband’s Presidency, then carpetbagged to become Senator of New York…has any qualifications for the position of Secretary of State.   Fact is, she doesn’t.

She is just another partisan posing as “smart power” while nearly everything she says and does falls squarely on the side of “dumb“, much like her boss, Obama.  Those who call her qualified and the “smartest woman in the room” confuse brains for an “I’m no Tammy Wynette” uber-liberal-feminist-corruptocrat-opportunist portraying a man.

Hillary Clinton has now asked those who oppose President Obama’s actions in Libya — “Whose side are you on“?

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

Whose side are we on?  Well, how about the side of the rule of law?

From HotAir.com:

This is really just the cherry on top of the sundae that is our Libya mission, isn’t it? First, the guy who became famous for opposing “dumb wars” launches a new mission in Libya.  Then he fights tooth and nail to avoid getting congressional approval, going so far as to ignore his own lawyers as to whether operations there are legal.  Then his own secretary of state — who spent years trying to make amends to the anti-war crowd for voting to invade Iraq — turns around and kinda sorta questions the loyalty of administration critics.

Never mind that this Libya war kinetic military action was begun with NO  Congressional approval (unlike the Iraq war) and Obama has declared that he does not need to follow the War Powers Act in Libya which is the law of the land.   BTW – President Bush had Congressional approval and many in this country and outside of this country who believe that Saddam had WMD.  All legitimate basis to go to war.  And the result has been a country that has been saved from the grips of its tyrant and, while still somewhat vulnerable, is a fledgling democracy.

But, apparently, Miss Whitewater thought it patriotic to offer dissent on legal wars, just not the illegal ones that she supports.

Well, here is Miss Testosterone’s words in 2003 when she wished to disagree with the actions of then President Bush (Warning: SCREECH alert!)

 “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.”

Hypocritical Screeching….a Hillary Clinton staple.

There never was an anti-war movement, just an anti-Bush movement


We all know it and now CDR Salamander says it!

Deep down, I think – most of us knew that anyway. It was an anti-Bush movement. War had nothing to do with it – it was all about the Left finding a way to regain power. By and large, 85% of the “anti-war” movement, with its manufactured International A.N.S.W.E.R./Code Pink rent-a-mob and their bannermen .

Spot on!   Need additional proof besides Obama’s hypocritical stances on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo closing?

Take it from King Obama, who has declared, despite legal advice otherwise, that our war kinetic military action in Libya does not represent “hostilities”.   Therefore, he needs no stinkin’ approval from Congress or the law.  Don’t trust me?  Trust the leftist NY Times:

President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers
at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal
authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya
without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with
internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon
general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice
Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they
believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war
amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have
required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May
20.

But Mr. Obama decided instead to adopt the legal analysis of several
other senior members of his legal team — including the White House counsel,
Robert Bauer, and the State Department legal adviser, Harold H. Koh — who argued
that the United States military’s activities fell short of “hostilities.” Under
that view, Mr. Obama needed no permission from Congress to continue the mission
unchanged.

The administration followed an unusual process in developing its position.                                                                                                                    Traditionally, the Office of Legal Counsel solicits
views from different agencies and then decides what the best interpretation of
the law is. The attorney general or the president can overrule its views, but
rarely do.

In this case, however, Ms. Krass was asked to submit the
Office of Legal Counsel’s thoughts in a less formal way to the White House,
along with the views of lawyers at other agencies. After several meetings and
phone calls, the rival legal analyses were submitted to Mr. Obama, who is a
constitutional lawyer, and he made the decision.

Allahpundit sums it up nicely at HotAir.com:

The Times is treating it as the major story that it is, but under a Republican president (especially one named, say, George Bush) it would be a scandal of nuclear proportions.  What they’re basically saying here, without actually saying it, is that the president’s own lawyers told him that the Libya war is illegal and he responded by looking around for other lawyers who’d tell him what he wanted to hear.

Oh, and all I hear is crickets from the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) regarding Obama’s words on Bush’s Iraq War (one for which Bush received Congressional approval).  Here’s Obama’s words on “dumb”wars from 2002 (via Verum Serum):

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda.

Well, here’s what I’m opposed to…. A dumb anti-American President posing as a King.  I oppose a war based solely on the whims of Obama and defended based on those very whims, not on the law or anyone else’s view.  I loathe a President, who is sworn to uphold our Constitution, but who would base his views for Libya on the “international” community, like the UN and NATO, instead of the laws of his country.

I am sick of the Left calling Iraq an illegal Bush war when Bush had the approval of Congress.  Obama has a truly illegal war now and has blatantly thumbed his nose at anyone who would question it or even call for him to make the action legal….Now, .let’s see Obama spin his deceit and hypocrisy further on Libya.

Oh, and Obama, what happened to “this action (in Libya) will last only a matter of days, not weeks?”  (It’s been 90 days or almost 13 weeks as of this writing)

(Hat tip to my husband for the CDR Salamander link)

Regarding the “deranged ululating blood-lusting head-hackers” and their cultural apologists in America


Preacher burns Koran in America.  Blood-thirsty Muslims slaughter innocents in Afghanistan.

America’s military leader in Afghanistan (Petraeus) apologizes for freedom and talks about our mission to “help Afghans”…(what happened to defeating our enemies?)

A leading GOP Senator (Lindsay RINO Graham) wishes that the First Amendment were not in the way of holding the preacher “accountable”.

 I wish we could find some way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war. During World War II, you had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy.

Good heavens what kind of America do we now live in? (Don’t answer that….it depresses me.)

As usual, however, Mark Steyn, rips open the ignorance of portraying American regret for the “free” pastor while completely missing the boat on the blood-thirsty monsters for whom there is no excuse.

Mark Steyn:

The reason we’re losing this thing is because of a lack of cultural confidence………

When I’m speaking on this subject, I often get asked to reprise the words I quote in my book, from Gen. Sir Charles Napier in India explaining to the locals his position on suttee — the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Napier was impeccably multicultural:

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.

In the absence of cultural confidence overseas, we are expending blood and treasure building an Afghanistan fit only for pederasts, tribal heroin cartels, and the blood-soaked savages of Mazar e-Sharif. In the absence of cultural confidence at home, we are sending the message that the bedrock principles of free, pluralist societies will bend and crumble in a vain race to keep up with the ever touchier sensitivities of the perpetually aggrieved. Claire Berlinski has it right: The real “racists” here are not this no-name pastor and his minimal flock but Reid, Graham, and the Times — for they assume that a significant proportion of Muslims are not responsible human beings but animals no more capable of rational behavior than the tiger who mauled Siegfried’s Roy. If that is true, certain consequences follow therefrom. The abandonment of the First Amendment is not one of them.

In Trafalgar Square, there is a statue of General Napier. I would urge any visitors to London to see it before it’s taken down, as it surely will be one day soon. Imagine what our world would look like if it were Lindsey Graham up on that plinth. A society led by such “men” cannot survive, and does not deserve to.

Read it all from Steyn here.

And Andy McCarthy at National Review has made strong arguments about this situation as well in No More Dhimmitude:

As always, Mark leaves nothing left to say regarding Sen. Lindsey Graham — though I am tempted to suggest that maybe the country would have been better off if he hadn’t exercised his First Amendment right to offer help beefing up the Libyan regime when he was a special guest in Qaddafi’s tent a few months back.

I would instead like to draw attention to the repugnant statement issued by General David Petraeus and NATO Ambassador Mark Sedwill…….

Notice he condemns the moron who torched the Koran — um, I’m sorry, the Holy Qur’an (including all its holy verses that command Muslims to strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers) — but not a word of condemnation for the sadistic jihadist killers who struck terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Rather, there is just an expression of sympathy for the families of those who were slain. And, of course, there is not a word of condemnation for our great ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the jihadi-pandering sleaze who did more to incite murder than the nutty Florida pastor did.

The warped moral universe we’ve turned into policy has become a national embarrassment……..Our Middle East policymakers can no longer distinguish between evil and stupidity. They go out of their way to genuflect to the scriptures that catalyze our enemies while willfully ignoring bible burning, church burning and infidel burning, which are everyday events in Islamic countries. Their strategy prizes the lives of people who despise our country over the security of our troops. After a decade of our sacrifice, they have managed to birth states in which Americans are hated, religious minorities are persecuted, and people who attempt to convert from Islam face prosecution and — unless they get whisked out of the country — the death penalty. And now, they’ve decide the big problem is not their skewed value-system but our First Amendment.

Read all of McCarthy’s piece, too.  It’s worth it.

Sad that we don’t fight wars to win them anymore, but to “take care” of our enemies and bow to THEIR will.  And the rhetoric and accompanying action is coming from the usually suspect politicians, but now also our military leaders feel the need to speak out against our First Amendment rights while ignoring the slaughter of innocents it supposedly triggered. 

It is exceptionally troubling that our leaders condemn the Koran-burning without mentioning Islamic slaughter, but a “piss-Christ” is considered art and funded by our leaders with our money.  Burning the American flag is an important First Amendment “right”….burning a Koran requires Senate hearings.

As Rush pointed out today, our US military burns Bibles in Afghanistan, but condemns one man in Florida burning a Koran?!?!?!??

Words can’t describe my feelings on the shape that our country finds itself in, including the lack of courage in our leaders.

What Obama will say in his (10-day-late) Libya speech


Fear me, Muammar!

Tonight Obama will finally lower himself (in his mind) to address the American public on his Libya mission….10 days after it began.

I don’t know if I’ll watch because I usually get nauseous with his lies and spin.

Besides,  I think I know what we will hear from Obama in one form or another tonight (my thoughts in parentheses):

  • The mission has been clear and focused (even though the mission and actions are NOT clear….and the focused “no-fly zone” has expanded into an effort to prop up the rebels and take sides in a civil war in Libya…and Obama has said Gaddafi must go while declaring that is not our mission)
  • MY mission is successful ( as I mentioned before…Obama will declare success even though the mission and end game is not clear)
  • Implementing a no-fly zone only (even though we are bombing tanks and other targets)
  • We are intervening in a humanitarian crisis (never mind that European oil is at stake… War for oil, anyone?) 
  • Intervening is vital to our national interest (but Defense Chief Gates said just yesterday it is not)
  • We had approval of Arab League and UN (no Congressional approval, though)
  • I repeatedly consulted/discussed with Congress (even though Congress was not consulted prior to bombing, only briefed as it began)
  • Supporting Libyan people and their “democracy” movement (despite the fact that some of the rebels are al Qaeda fighters–likely those who fought against the US in Iraq)
  • We put together a multilateral coalition unlike other President’s in the past who went in unilaterally ( he means Bush and Iraq and he is lying about this…Bush’s coalition came after months of discussion in Congress, 17 UN resolutions and more countries on board than Obama has in Libya)
  • We got out in “days” as I said we would and handed over to NATO (never mind it looks weak AND NATO is pretty much the US of A!)

I think we might also be able to play Obama Libya speech “Bingo” and see how many times he says the following:

  • Success, I, me, unilateral/(Bush insinuation), humanitarian, handing off, NATO, bloodbath, let me be clear, I did, I have, smart, no-fly zone, I’ve said from the beginning

Here are some things Obama will not utter tonight:

  • The word “war” (kinetic military action, perhaps?)
  • A “let me be clear” reminder of his own statements about Presidents declaring war without approval, about “dumb wars”, about how we can’t go about helping every nation in need
  • al Qaeda
  • oil
  • that his hand off to NATO means that we are still footing the bill and pretty much run NATO with our manpower and leadership.

And you can bet that the paradoxes of the Libyan War outlined by Victor Davis Hansen will not be addressed by Obama.  I highly recommend reading VDH’s piece here.

Oh–and for the media’s part, don’t expect a replay of the hand-wringing they displayed for Bush and the Iraq War.  You can just hear some of the following and how it would be spoken and portrayed if this were a Republican President/Bush in office:

  • Still no answers on why Congress was not consulted, but the Arab League and the UN were.
  • And tonight, despite the rhetoric of the President, we find that the rebels in Libya have al Qaeda amongst their midst…if not fully comprised of al Qaeda fighters who fought against the US in Iraq.  Are we propping up our enemies?
  • What will this WAR cost the American taxpayers in this poor economy?
  • Why choose Libya for humanitarian aid?  Or is this really about a war for oil?  Join us tonight at 10PM for the exclusive.
  • Obama’s Defense Sec and Sec of State gave differing viewpoints on our need to be in this unilateral war.  We, the MSM, will ask about the chaos in the President’s administration.

…..I could go on.

Have fun watching our President —10 days, at least, too late.

Obama claims the mission he didn’t clearly define in Libya is succeeding


I said this to my husband on day one of the bombing in Libya….

(Official White House Photo)

“Watch and see…Obama will not clearly define the mission in Libya and will skirt the questions being asked so that he can claim success no matter what happens.”

This is Obama’s MO (method of operation) on many things….

He has been unclear and contradicting from the get-go on Libya.  (and, one could argue, disconnected since he chose to leave the country for  5 days while engaging the troops in war in Libya).  From Yahoo/Politico:

Obama was asked the most obvious question — what is the U.S. endgame in Libya? — several times during his trip [to Latin America]. His answers seemed deliberately obtuse: To stop a humanitarian crisis and, hopefully, drive Muammar Qadhafi from power, while at the same time ceding leadership of the effort to countries with a direct regional stake in the outcome — France and Arab League nations — sooner rather than later.

Well, it didn’t take long….he declared success today….

From American Pundit:

In Saturday’s speech, Obama said its military mission in Libya is ‘clear and focused’, despite some criticism. “We’re succeeding in our mission,” he said. “We’ve taken out Libya’s air defenses. Gaddafi’s forces are no longer advancing across Libya.”

Also, Obama mentions taking out Libyan air defense and that the “forces’ are no longer advancing across Libya….

But I thought we were only implementing a “no-fly zone” which may include bombing air defenses but not ground “forces”.

Don’t get me wrong…I think our military has been successful in what they have been asked to do–just as they always are–but that doesn’t mean the mission is clear nor has it been communicated effectively in this country.

Of course, Obama also claimed that he has kept us informed…then why so many questions? Another question?

Even though we have seen SOME Democrats object to Obama’s methods on taking us into this war (ie. little consultation with Congress while consulting with and agreeing with the United Nations), we still have not seen the full-blown fierce rhetoric of the Left that was spewed at George W. Bush…and Bush compiled a larger coalition and consulted with Congress for months before Congress also AGREED to action in Iraq.  Where’s the “rush to war” and “war for oil” pronouncements from that crowd now?

(Or would that be “rush to kinetic military action” and “kinetic military action for oil”?)

And perhaps even more disturbing than Obama’s MO for declaring his success, is the fact the reports coming out in the last couple of days indicate that we may be propping up al Qaeda fighters against Gaddafi.  As bad as Gaddafi is do we want al Qaeda jihadis exerting major influence if Gaddafi goes? 

From UK Telegraph headline:

“Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime”

I still don’t understand why Obama wanted to jump on board this campaign.  For the anti-war professor who railed against Presidents going to war without Congress and “dumb” wars, it is a bit mind-boggling to understand his thinking on this.

It is clear that the UK and France have a vested interest in oil there, but Obama has went out of his way to alienate those two allies in the last two years. Why would he do this to help them now?

Or is it that Obama saw pressure from the United Nations and will take this opportunity to prove (in his mind) that the world doesn’t need America as a leader.  And to prove that he fully intends to follow the lead of the UN and international community instead of obtaining Congressional buy-in and doing what is best for the United States.

Then again, there are theories that Obama wishes to prop up these Muslim radicals (like Al Qaeda) in the region.  It seems to be what has happened in Egypt.  Get rid of the bad dictator so that an even worse ideological group of Islamic radicals can gain the reigns of power. 

Was it pressure from the UN?  Is he trying to prove a point about his professor’s take on war and peace?  Or he is purposefully propping up the radical Islamic world?

The one item he has stated – to assist in a humanitarian crisis— is the least likely reason why he decided to go into Libya…..if it were, we would have been in Iran two years ago, Egypt three months ago, and Syria and Bahrain now.

Obama’s “Presence of Malice”


Amidst the questionable tactics that Obama has used in getting us involved in another war in Libya, many in the media and politics are labeling his Libya actions as just one more instance of “incompetence” or “inexperience”.

While I do believe that Obama is incompetent and inexperienced in the skills it takes for executive management and the role of Commander-in-Chief, I don’t believe those descriptions fully explain the Obama presidency.

Remember that Obama said he would fundamentally change this country ….and he is well on the path.  When you look at his record and his actions over the last two years — Stimulus slush fund, Obamacare lies, unaccountable and unconstitutional czars, race-based justice, war with Libya with  no Congressional debate, etc. — it seems that much of the anti-Constitutional, anti-American movements of the administration are malicious.

I read an article today at the American Digest that makes the point much better than I can….

Even Obama’s most rabid supporters outside of his army of apparatchiks must surely sense that there is something “off” in the psychic structure of the current president. Most attribute it to his “yearning” to make the country ‘worthy’ of it’s place at the head of the nations. I suggest that it is something alarmingly dark and destructive. I suggest it comes from a psyche that, for many, many reasons stretching back to infancy, is so structured that it loathes the country down to its marrow, much as the psyche must loathe itself, and that is working, daily, on dismantling the nation with nothing except pure malicious intent. Why? Because it can.

Do I know this for a certainty? I cannot say, but “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design.”

The author of this piece points out that conservative politicians and others may WANT to blame the current decisions and actions of this President on incompetence even though the much more dangerous reason — malice — is, arguably, the power behind Obama’s actions.

Self-identified conservatives, it seems to me, are only too happy to “rule out malice” when it comes to examining the actions of this oddest, most alien, and most unconnected to the American earth of presidents. I believe this is because it is both comfortable and gratifying for conservatives to do so. Conservatives love to think of themselves as being not only reasonable and right, but polite as well. Progressives are only too glad to help them smother in this self-nullifying delusion…..

 …….The portrait here is of some hapless, sad-sack of a fellow ready to be decked out in the bulbous red nose, the clown shoes, and the strap-on poo-poo cushion, as he slinks disconsolately off the center stage of History. It’s a mindset that presupposes that the portrait of Dorian Gray is actually to be an Emmet Kelly self-portrait in pastels. It’s a comforting vision, but it is wrong. Deeply wrong and more deeply dangerous.

This posture first and last underestimates a man who has, by hooks and by crooks and by force of will, put himself in a place where he can now, at will, fire many cruise missiles into a foreign country without so much as a “Mother Jones, may I.” It is a habit of mind that not only underestimates Obama, it misunderestimates him by several orders of magnitude. It is well to remember that calling an American president “the most powerful man in the world” is not just a figure of speech.

Such an intellectual posture is typical of a classic American conservative attempting to come to grips with this strange phenomenon who holds the keys and the go-codes to the armed might of the United States of America. It is an attitude that worships the lie that a person occupying the role of the president of the United States must, he simply must, have the best interests of the nation, as he has come to understand them, at heart. It’s a bright and shiny concept and has a lot of innate attractiveness to the American conservative mindset. But like many contemporary conservative concepts it has little to say to the darker reality we face; a reality in which the chief executive of the nation is hell-bent on a malicious program whose intent is permanent harm to the nation he has perversely sworn to serve and protect. To a man who has no other gods before him the phrase “So help me God” means nothing.

For awhile, perhaps giving the benefit-of-the-doubt,  I volleyed between incompetence and malice as the power behind Obama’s actions and policies.  As each day passes and each action taken, I am more convinced that it is the latter.  The author cited above is on to something.  I do fear that even many who could see Obama’s far-left tendencies before the election will still wont to call it malice, since “incompetence” is easier to grasp and live with on a daily basis.  Malice would indicate something that could do massive and, perhaps, irreparable harm to the country we know.  I would argue that we have been deeply harmed and many more years of this will turn to the irreparable.

I highly encourage you to read the rest of the “Presence of Malice” argument here.

(H/T:  DougRoss at Journal)

“Don’t try to blow sunshine up my butt”


Allen West is the man!  And I do mean man with cojones…..cojones so sorely lacking in our current Presidential leadership.

A CAIR radical Islamic sympathizer confronts Rep. Allen West in a public meeting.

Allen West hammers him with the truth about the Koran and its violence…and the history of Islamic violence.

He tell’s this guy “I’ve been on the battlfield….Don’t try to blow sunshine up my butt

…..a Koran wielding Nezar Hamze, Executive Director of the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Hamze confronted Congressman West and asked him to point out where in the Koran does it give marching orders to Muslims “to carry out attacks against Americans and innocent people”.  West quickly pointed out that the Koran was written long before America even existed and that it does indeed tell believers to kill infidels, and then proceeded to chronicle a lengthy list of historical Muslim acts of aggression.  Congressman West closed his retort by referencing the Fort Hood shootings and 9-11 attacks, saying that his first hand experiences on the battlefield has given him insight into the tactics that Islamists use before telling Hamze not to “try to blow sunshine up my butt” with his criticism of him. West took offense to Hamze’s amateurish criticism of his stance on radical Islam and concluded by telling Mr. Hamze to “put the microphone down and go home.”

Some of it hard to hear from the crowd cheers, but listen closely and to the end…YOU will be cheering him on by the end!

All I can say is WOW!

(HT: Ace of Spades)

“Don’t touch my junk”


From Charles Krauthammer in Washington Post today: 

…In a stroke, the young man ascended to myth, or at least the next edition of Bartlett’s, warning the agent not to “touch my junk.”

Not quite the 18th-century elegance of “Don’t Tread on Me,” but the age of Twitter has a different cadence from the age of the musket. What the modern battle cry lacks in archaic charm, it makes up for in full-body syllabic punch.

Don’t touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the Tea Party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm election voter. Don’t touch my junk, Obamacare - get out of my doctor’s examining room, I’m wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don’t touch my junk, Google – Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don’t touch my junk, you airport security goon – my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I’m a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come?

Isn’t it amazing what we Americans will tolerate when the methods used are slowly, but are changed over time from a simple idea of security to a pretense of “fighting terror”.  At the airport security gate, we’ve gone from simple electronic scans of luggage to sexual assault in a matter of nine years.

And to what end?  Our Homeland Security and other government-run or regulated organizations refuse to secure our borders and deport those most likely to attempt another act of terror on an domestic airliner.  In addition, they refuse to profile passengers and look more closely at those who fit the target descriptions and actions of those who would commit such acts. So we all endure the veiled suspicion of guilt when travelling through an airport.  Have any 89-year old grannies blew up any buildings lately?   Or how about that 3-year old with the Teddy Bear subjected to a TSA pat down…how many 3-year olds are guilty of terrorist attacks in this country? 

What ever happened to our 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure?

Here’s what happened to those rights, for example:

Americans must demand a halt to full body scans and groping at airport security terminals.

Krauthammer again said it best:

The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? Okay. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population.

But now you insist on a full-body scan, a fairly accurate representation of my naked image to be viewed by a total stranger? Or alternatively, the full-body pat-down, which, as the junk man correctly noted, would be sexual assault if performed by anyone else?

This time you have gone too far, Big Bro’. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time and try my patience. But don’t touch my junk.

(UPDATE: Thanks for the link from Marathon Pundit.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 252 other followers