Krauthammer on Michelle Obama’s speech: “I didn’t buy a line of it.” #DNC2012 #Liar #actionsspeaklouderthanwords #MichelleObama


Charles Krauthammer gave Michelle Obama high marks on delivery, but doesn’t believe a line of her speech.

Neither do I.  Actions speak much louder than words, especially where Barack Obama is concerned.

From Krauthammer:

“Looking at the scene, looking at how he’s conducted himself if the presidency  and particularly campaign, with ruthlessness and determination and drive it’s  not quite a plausible story…..I’m sure in the arena it was a  plausible story. I saw the tears but I’m afraid, I thought it’s a great speech  but I didn’t buy a line of it.”

View the video of Krauthammer’s point here.

Advertisements

Obama: King of Excuses


Obama on August 15, 2011:

“We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, got the economy moving  again. … But over the last six months, we’ve had a run of bad luck.”

George Washington:

“Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses.”

Obama is full of excuses.  And empty of any self-accountability whatsoever…..As only Krauthammer can elaborate:

A troubled nation wonders: How did we get mired in 9.1 percent unemployment,  0.9 percent growth and any economic outlook so bad that the Federal Reserve  pledges to keep interest rates at zero through mid-2013 — an admission that it  sees little hope on the horizon?

Bad luck, explains our president. Out of nowhere came Japan and its supply-chain disruptions, Europe and its debt problems, the Arab Spring and  those oil spikes. Kicked off, presumably, by various acts of God (should He not  be held accountable too?): earthquake and tsunami. (Tomorrow: pestilence and  famine. Maybe frogs.)……

…A plague of bad luck and bad faith — a recalcitrant providence and an  unpatriotic opposition. Our president wrestles with angels. Monsters of mythic  proportions.

A comforting fantasy. But a sorry excuse for a failing economy and a flailing  presidency.

Obama is a miserable failure at leading this great country.  However, Obama likely considers his promotion of class warfare, socialism, government/business alliances, and record welfare state as success.

Obama’s success = America’s failure.  Gee where have I heard something like that before?

Look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care.  I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don’t want this to work. ……

…… We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he’s doing simply because of the color of his skin?  Sorry.  I got past the historical nature of this months ago.  He is the president of the United States, he’s my president, he’s a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn’t have to being down with the struggle, all of that’s irrelevant to me.  We’re talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids.  Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism?  Why would I want to do that?  So I can answer it, four words, “I hope he fails.”  And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say.  Shows you just how far gone we are.

Obama has failed this country (perhaps purposefully, in my opinion) but has succeeded in much of his anti-American, anti-capitalist agenda.  That agenda means America fails.  It it not too late to turn back the tide but it must be done in 2012.

Obama must be ousted in 2012…..that’s all there is to it.

“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.)

Krauthammer: The Last Refuge of a Liberal


This piece has been out for a few days, but I haven’t had a chance to add it to my blog until now.

Charles Krauthammer skewers the libs and their repetitive cries of “bigotry” against those who dare to disagree and actively work against their statist, collectivist, and controlling agenda.

I am going to cover Krauthammer’s last paragraph first…because it is priceless in its ability to call out the Dems for what they are:

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

I am a PROUD member of the great unwashed…and I can’t wait to wash the floor with these hypocritical elites in November!

To begin, Krauthammer points out the Obama/liberal agenda and its fall from grace:

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”…….That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry.

Yep, the “hope” and “change” of 2008 has turned into the “Nope” and “Power change” of 2010….thank God, the American people have not ALL swallowed the Obama administration’s false “hope” and his  intent to change our country and move it forever away from our Founding Documents and the intents of our Founders. 

Sure, our country has slowly been sliding away from its Founding principles for  years, but the advent of Obama and an unchecked Democratic Congress has rapidly shown the Progressive/Liberal collectivism, relativism, and globalism for what it is…..destruction of our country on a grand scale.   And America doesn’t like it.

Thank God Almighty the comfortable masses are awakening in this midst of this daily nightmare.

Krauthammer continues:

And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

— Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

— Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

— Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

— Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become “ungovernable,” last year’s excuse for the Democrats’ failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama’s social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.

Not to mention our disgust at the new power czar structure Obama has put in place; massive deficits, spending, and debt; Obama’s hypocritical flip-flop/credit-taking on the Iraq War success; Congress’ inability to read monstrous bill’s before passing them; and deeming anything from healthcare to budgets as passed–without debate and bipartisan input.

I have no empathy for those who ASK to play in politics. Obama ASKED for the job of President and Pelosi/Reid slobbered all over their constituents awaiting their turn at grand power.

When they signed up for it, the American people came as part of the package. Resorting to calling them bigots, classifying them as terrorists, racists, and Islamophobes when they disagree shows the smallness of the individuals doing the name-calling.

Let’s take the Tea Party:

The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Arizona’s SB1070 immigration law:

Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

And California’s Proposition 8….passed by a vote of the PEOPLE, overturned by a rogue judge:

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And the latest atrocity — the Ground Zero mosque:

…The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration’s pretense that we are at war with nothing more than “violent extremists” of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

In summary, Krauthammer says:

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, “just downright mean”?

I am afraid Mistress Michelle is soon going to see just HOW downright mean we can be when retaliating against the constant poking of her husband’s anti-American agenda every…single…day.

November 2….A day that will live in infamy.

Krauthammer on Obama: “The narcissism of the man is rather unbounded.”


Today on Bret Baier’s Fox All-Star Panel, Charles Krauthammer didn’t mince words when explaining the egotistical and narcissistic view of himself that Obama possesses when he claims to be  “America’s First Pacific President”.

While in Asia, first Obama trashes George W. Bush and America overseas.  Later, Obama claims that he is the “First Pacific President“.    In a sickening display of disrespecting his predecessor while overseas, Obama then moves into his Messiah mode and says:

“There must be no doubt,” he said. “As America’s first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”

After all, you know that American history and Presidential greatness didn’t begin until Obama took office in January, 2009.

On the panel (video below), Krauthammer gives many examples including John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush’s service in WWII…both of who ended up, literally, in the Pacific Ocean while fighting the War.

After that Krauthammer lays it on…..

“These people actually spent time in the deep Pacific, but in Obama’s mind it doesn’t anyway match the experience of the baby Jesus….excuse me….baby Obama growing up on some Pacific island.

The narcissism of the man is rather unbounded.”

Don’t hold back now Krauthammer!

After Nina Easton basically agrees and brings up other “Pacific” President examples….Krauthammer, correctly and sarcastically says:

“But, you see, everything in Obama’s life makes him world historical.”

Here’s the video.  It is worth watching the entire clip, but at 1:25 Krauthammer references Kennedy and Bush and at 1:45 he begins his “Baby Jesus/Obama” reference.

I could think of a lot more firsts that are much more appropriate. 

 Obama could be America’s:

  • First Auto Company-Owning President
  • First Bank-Owning President
  • First Death Panel President
  • First “Jobs Created or Saved” President
  • First Community Organizer President
  • First Man-Child President
  • First Anti-American President
  • First Chicago Thug President
  • First 90-degree Bow Wow President
  • First Marxist President
  • First Military-Loathing President

First Pacific President?  Not so much.

Charles Krauthammer: Obama doesn’t lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads


Charles Krauthammer pretty much sums up Obama’s lies without calling them that.

Joe Wilson was correct that Obama lies….Krauthammer’s other names for it is just semantics (and maybe Krauthammer intended it that way)– you can call it slick, misleading, misdirected, whatever….it is a lie if what you are stating is not effectually true. And Obama is the master of  it.

I copied all of Krauthammer’s piece because he is clear and concise in pointing out Obama’s misleadingstatements misidirection implications lies on healthcare.

(My emphasis)

Does He Lie?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 18, 2009

 You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn’t lie. He’s too subtle for that. He . . . well, you judge.

Herewith three examples within a single speech — the now-famous Obama-Wilson “you lie” address to Congress on health care — of Obama’s relationship with truth.

(1) “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future,” he solemnly pledged. “I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period.”

Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama’s very next sentence: “And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”

This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there’s absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.

Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.

Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. “Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?”

(2) And then there’s the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.

But more important, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we’d have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it’s illegal to enter the United States illegally. We have laws against burglary, too. But we also provide for cops and jails on the assumption that most burglars don’t voluntarily turn themselves in.

When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?

(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating “hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud” from Medicare.

That’s not a lie. That’s not even deception. That’s just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse — Meg Greenfield once called this phrase “the dread big three” — as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.

Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health-care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn’t he gotten started on the painless billions in “waste and fraud” savings?

Obama doesn’t lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health-care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things — energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel’s Law — a crisis is a terrible thing to waste — failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.

So on to the next gambit: selling health-care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office’s demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform — until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.

Obama doesn’t lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads — so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.

Slickness wasn’t fatal to “Slick Willie” Clinton because he possessed a winning, nearly irresistible charm. Obama’s persona is more cool, distant, imperial. The charming scoundrel can get away with endless deception; the righteous redeemer cannot.