Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Barack Obama, 59 day’zed and confused

It took strong urging, sinking poll numbers, and a gathering sense of incompetence to force the President to address the nation last night. The Left had strong hopes that their “Reagan” (now considered their Ray Nagin) would come out swinging masterfully for the ropes, taking the reigns of leadership, and showing his “true grit”.

How do you say, “Epic Fail”? Just like that…and even MSNBC had to admit it, as evidenced by the above video.

When you have Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthiews saying…well almost…that you are incompetent, then you have problems. The President does have a problem, and it is that he is not a leader. He is a hopeless ideologue. Did he have answers to the problem? Of course not, he was selling carbon cap and trade and “pie in the sky” programs which will cost the nation trillions. In the end, it will not be sunshine heating your homes or filling your gas tanks.

Barack Obama comes from an insulated world of Chicago politics. He doesn’t see things as problems to be solved, but rather problems to be exploited. He does not understand how America works, or WHY it works. And as we know, something foreign is something often hated and feared.

In his place, one can envision Ronald Reagan taking the helm, calming the nation, stating his plan, and then acting on that plan. Surely, he would have used his power as President to sweep aside red tape and EPA regulations to do what had to be done. Obama cannot do that, it is tantamount to an admission that Government is secondary to private industry and entrepreneurship. A Ronald Reagan would be happy to meet with the best minds in private industry, and embraced the best ideas to solve the problem. To Mr Obama, this is a foreign idea; To the President, Govt is the God that must be honored–Individuals and individual ideas are to be ignored.

It is funny to watch the “tingle up the leg” Leftists on MSNBC contort in pain over the chosen one’s inability to channel “The Great Communicator”, but it is to be expected. Obama is not a great communicator, but rather the “Great speech reader”. He has not run a lemonade stand, he has not been at the helm of a corporation, a state, or had to make a budget work with limited resources.

The President will surely continue as he has always done: he will give speeches, he will try to figure out the exact combination of words (or should I say his speech writers will) to make Utopia seem real. And in this imaginary world that the President was taught about during his formative years, Marxism works, business is to be outlawed, and the individual ignored. The problem is that he is trying to prove something that has never been proved: Socialism is better than Capitalism.

Michael Savage was the first to compare Barack Obama to the “Emperor with no clothes” and I think this is a powerful comparison. Stripped of his teleprompter, his greek columns, and a sound system with ample reverb, we see him for who he is: A talker and utopian thinker. He cannot “plug the damn hole” or “suck up the oil with a straw” and nobody thinks he can. But Barack Obama thinks leadership is about demonizing his foes, nationalizing and consuming private fortunes, and honoring red tape over actual action.

The equation just doesn’t add up. The “naked emperor” cannot fix budget problems with more spending, he cannot fix problems with regulation, and he cannot solve energy problems by banning all energy sources save solar and wind. In his lack of details in last night’s speech, the President would have surely loved to talk about the movie “Avatar” and the incredible “unobtainium”, but even he and his speech writers know that the American people aren’t buying it.

In the final equation, words have little power when facing war, poverty, and natural and unnatural chaos. And sadly, the President is showing fear and anger behind his eyes, unwilling to ever admit how wrong everything he had ever been taught and regurgitated really is.



Israel/North Korea: Media Hypocrisy

So-called “Peace Protestors” beat the hell out of members of the IDF. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I would have shot them, too.

It never fails to amaze me at the Hypocrisy of the media and the “World Community” in relation to Israel.

We recently learned of North Korea sinking a South Korean ship, which by any test would be an act of war by the thuggish dictatorship. The media response? It was reported with a sluggish yawn.

When Israel is forced to deal with issues dealing with it’s own security, the hypocrisy is ramped up to levels unknown to any thuggocracy. Anti-semitism? You bet.

Would we allow a flotilla of possible terrorists from Pakistan float down the Hudson river without searching their boats, at the very least? No, we would confront them, ask them to stop, and if they refused we would blow them out of the water. At least that is what would have been done before President Barack Obama’s “Open hand” strategy.

I know the argument is that the Gaza was given to the “Palestinians” and they should be able to rule as they see fit. The problem here is that Israel had strict conditions about giving them this land, and since it was released, Gaza has been used to launch attacks on Israel.

Does any country need to abide by pacifism via world edict? The answer is no. But if a country uses force, they must face the heat such actions present. In this case, Israel was simply guarding itself from threat, and they have the right to self-preservation.

Historically, one needs to understand the background of Israel and it’s reformation to understand the country and it’s rights.

To simplify things a bit, first of all one must understand that the land on which the Jews inhabit has been the land of the Jews far into antiquity. And the land was actually much greater than the size of Israel today. The Roman’s called the land Judea (Ludaea) or in reference to the land of the Jews. At one point this included parts of Syria and Jordan, during the time of Solomon.

The word “Palestinian” comes from “Philistia” which was actually considered more of a name for a land mass, but not one of any particular ethnic origin. If anything, the “Philistines” (you might remember they fought Samson) were more Greek than Arab in origin.

Of course, and the argument will be made, that borders and land switches hands over time, and this is certainly true.

In 63 BC, the Roman’s conquered just about everything in that area of the world. However, it was still considered the “land of the Jews”. It was the first “First Jewish revolt” (66-73 AD) that led to the Jews being rejected from the heart of Judea. Rome then supplanted foreign peoples into that area, in an effort to suppress further uprising.

But were these new residents Arabs? Historian Mary Smallwood, writes: “The bulk of the new settlers were Greco-Syrians.” So they were of Greek origin from the area of Syria–this does seem to support the fact that the “Palestinians” (Philistines) were Greek.

To make a long story short, the land eventually fell into the hands of the Ottoman turks, and finally Britain. It was basically then returned to it’s original inhabitants (the Jews), and the areas we know of as the Judea and Samaria, which were renamed for politically correct reasons to the West Bank and Gaza. This certainly helped give the so-called “Palestinians” (basically now a mish-mash of refugees having Arabic origin) a foothold. After all, it is pretty hard to say that Judea (the west bank) was never the home of the Jews, because the name says it all.

Today, the “Palestinians” use “occupied territory” to talk about Judea and the rest of Israel. Their intent is to push the Jews into the sea, and for what reason? Because they are not Arabs.

Yet the world seems to side with the Palestinians, because a good many people in the world continue to hate Jews, if not for being “God’s people” then because they flourish in the desert, and were able to defeat the Arab world in the 1967 “6-day war”, which shamed them.

The key here is that Israel is on the land which it inhabited for millenia. The Palestinians were actually greeks, and a good portion of land was given to the Arabs when the League of Nations reformed Israel, yet they want more–actually they want it all, and all Jews dead.

Yet the media will never speak of this. They will inflate this incident into Israel being a bully. Self-defense is against the bullies, not BY the bully. Watch the above video and tell me that the IDF were not being attacked in an orchestrated way with people who had weapons on the ready. Who just finds steel bars laying around on a ship?

Remember, this is about weakening Israel and disarming it. In this way, it can be destroyed. If the world really were just, wouldn’t they be going after Iran?


The Candy-coated President

Obama tours the carefully manicured Fourchon, La. beach. Who did the cleaning prior to his trip? His contributor, British Petroleum. Would the President have walked down an oil covered beach and gotten his shoes dirty? Signs point to no.

Aqua performing what could be Barack Obama’s theme song at this point. Enjoy!

His hair is always perfect, his shirts white and pressed, buttoned to the top. His complexion perfect from the application of skin creams, he walks the beach recently cleaned by hundreds of BP employees rushed there for his pleasure; this President seems to not like to get dirty. Can anyone see the President changing the oil on his car?

Beyond his apparent metrosexuality, Barack Obama also does not seem to like the “dirtiness” of dealing with people. Unlike George Bush, who spent his time cutting trees and clearing brush from his Texas land, or Ronald Reagan who enjoyed riding horses on his ranch, this President seems sealed in cellophane spiritually, emotionally, and politically. Unlike Bush, who went to ground zero after 9/11 and stood amidst he rubble with a megaphone, this would not be acceptable–Obama would need a professional audio system and teleprompter, and without one, he would feel such a speech as “beneath him”.

Barry doesn’t like to get dirty.

Sure, the President doesn’t have a problem misusing people or even destroying them if it meets his purpose. But it never seems that he wants to do it himself. This is why he has people like Raum Emmanuel. And I am sure that he doesn’t want the trouble of having to deal with selecting who gets axed and who doesn’t–he leaves it to others.

Barry’s first rule of fight club–let others fight in fight club.

During his time in Illinois’ State Senate, his most common vote was “present”. To take a stand or show leadership, at least at this point, seemed too troublesome.

Consider “Obamacare”: Sure, the President sold it, but he never seemed to care what was in it. He simply let others do that, it was too much trouble. As long as the overall bill was within his required standards of Marxism–he would support it. However, he never wanted to do more than give speeches. He didn’t want to have to deal with the “dirt” and never did.

Psychologists would say that Barry is suffering from “narcissistic personality disorder”, would you agree? The symptoms:

■ Believing that you’re better than others
■ Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
■ Exaggerating your achievements or talents
■ Expecting constant praise and admiration (Barry? no!)
■ Believing that you’re special and acting accordingly
Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
■ Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
■ Taking advantage of others
■ Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
■ Being jealous of others
■ Believing that others are jealous of you
■ Trouble keeping healthy relationships
■ Setting unrealistic goals
■ Being easily hurt and rejected
■ Having a fragile self-esteem (doesn’t like criticism)
■ Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional

The President recently gave his first press conference in ten months, and even the press (who had given him a pass from “day one”) is beginning to see that the Emperor has no clothes. Obama doesn’t like to be challenged or questioned. It might make him feel “dirty”.

The term used to be called “Candy-ass”, but in reverance for the office of President, I will simply say that the President is “candy-coated”. And beneath that thin candy coating seems to be a man who cannot understand his common man. He seems to be the same sort of automaton that he asked his supporters to be, but with a belief he is the messiah of Marxism.

Am I the only one who longs for the days of “real men” and “real” Americans? The John Wayne’s, the Teddy Roosevelt’s, the George Washington’s and General George Patton’s? Surely these men would be comfortable enough in their own skin to lead rather than be led, and to act for the good of country, with the humility to know that most things are greater than their own egos.

The candy shell for all it’s sticky sweetness–seems to be cracking.


An Impeachable offense?

This video of Dick Morris on “Hannity” makes a powerful point: Can a President ignore Federal law and the Constitution for poltical gain?

Morris makes a great point when he notes that the “Chicago politics” of illegal bribery via power-mongering cannot be allowed to extend into the Federal realm. It is bad enough in Chicago, do we want a nation run in this way?

I recently had a bit of an argument with a friend on Facebook about Obama. She said that he was a nincompoop who deserves little in the form of histrionics to define him. Basically, she was saying that Obama was a foolish “light weight”. But can we say that about a man who is willing to use and misuse every Presidental power to irrevocably change our nation? I think it would be a mistake to underestimate either his radicalism or his ability as given to him by the people and a Congress with the power to enforce his will.

A President who is willing to break the law is dangerous. A President steeped in radicalism with an “Get it done for Marxism” credo is something that should be challenged. Sure, we cannot assume that he has pure Dictatorial power, he doesn’t, yet. But he is setting a precident–if you can get it done, do it and disregard the electorate.

These people know a few things that are pretty terrifying: They know that if they control Congress, they can pass just about anything and disregard ethics, law, or future challenge. They hope to pack the courts with radicals who will support their changes. They also know that the media will support them, or in the very least ignore their vicious attack on America. They also assume weakness from their opponents; the Republicans are fearful of full-blown Conservatism, as evidenced by the faux breed such as David Brooks and David Frum, or for that matter “consensus builders” like Lindsey Graham or John McCain.

Will the media pursue a scandal greater than any under Bush? I highly doubt it. Will Republicans charge Barack Obama with “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Or do they fear the media calling them racists? Personally, I wonder.

Nation is greater than individual power or gain. The people are greater than the elected. But given the power we have so wrongly provided them, Congress and the President feel they are Kings and Queens, not Representatives.

We need to change their minds. We need to let them know the fear of misusing their offices at the ballot box. And once ejected, we must enforce the rule of law and monitor our new policians closely. We cannot affford to resume our long sleep, or that sleep will become a coma.


Tell Tale Signs of incompetence and the Times Square bomber

Youtube clip: The individual shown is apparently Faisal Shahzad, and the media described him as a “furtive white male”. Notice that this supports the assertion that the media is trying to constantly help the Obama administration in it’s attempt to demonize the Tea Party and other groups opposed to the President’s policies.

The attempted bombing in New York City’s Times Square should be a warning: The Obama Administration is horribly incompetent in dealing with terrorism.

Just look at the facts:

For the past few months, the administration has refused to talk about terrorism. Instead, they have dubbed such acts as “man-caused disaster”. So, in reality, all Obama’s men take the “See no evil, say no evil” tact on the grim reality that terrorism is real. Why? there are multiple reasons. One is that the Obamists want to distance themselves from George W Bush’s tenacious “war on terror”. President Bush justly took the belief that terrorism was a huge problem, and decided it was important to battle the problem on all fronts. President Obama refuses to do so, thinking that his great oratory powers will be enough to convince Islam that we are not the enemy. The President’s own base, the radical Left, also hates President Bush so much that they are blinded to reality.

The President has also exposed his weakness to the world by constant refusal to deal with “bad players” in the world, like Iran and North Korea. The simple fact that while this whole episode happened, Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinijad was speaking in New York City. This alone is a sign of weakness, since Ahmadinijad has been so open about his belief in destroying Isreal should Iran be able to secure a nuclear weapon. Obama’s response to this rhetoric? To demonize Israel about settlements in it’s own capital of Jerusalem. Again, this reeks of weakness and concession.

Much has been made of President Bush’s use of the Patriot Act to “listen in” on communications between Americans calling countries leading the pack in terrorism. Now we know why. The suspect, Faisal Shahzad, 30, is a naturalized American citizen who recently traveled to Pakistan and was communicating to others in that country from our soil. Had his communications been monitored, this event may have been caught before it got to this stage. And we should take no comfort by the fact that this act did not end in tragedy, it easily could have. No thanks to the Obama administration for their inaction.

There is also the case of the Fort Hood shooting by Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. After 9/11, it seems that an attempt has been made to “prove our goodness” in the miltary by pushing political correctness. Hassan was known to be lazy, radical, and was so bold about his Islamic beliefs his own business card had S.O.A. (soldier of Allah) emblazoned on it. Instead of drumming Hassan out of the military, which would have happened to any non-Islamic military member with his level of incompetence, he was allowed to stay and even promoted.

The Obama Administration has also denied a request to get to the bottom of the ignorance (or refusal to deal with) Hassan’s increasingly bizarre presence in our country’s defense system. Can you say, “Cover up”?

There is also the issue of “profiling” which the Left is constantly harping about. Israel uses profiling to stop terrorism, and does so unabashedly. What is wrong with recognizing that most terrorists come from certain groups? To the Left, and Obama and he is people are the Left, it is “fair” to search small caucasion children and aging black paraplegic women in equal proportion to 30 yo Islamic males who travel to Pakistan. This is foolish, and in time will be deadly.

There is also the use of the word “terror” improperly to demonize President Obama’s opponents, namely the Tea Party. Recently, the militia group known as “The Hutaree” was arrested for a plot to attack the Police and govt. Sure, if this were true, it would be a reason for their arrest. But it was the concern of a “true Liberal” Judge, US District Judge Victoria Roberts, about the seeming lack of actually ability or action to carry out an attack, that lead her to release them on bail recently. Remember that this arrest happened very close to Tea Party demonstrations, in unison with statements by President Bill Clinton about concerns about “violence” and “domestic terror”. Obviously, this arrest was timed for political effect.

So, while we are seeing obvious attempts to attack our nation from within by Islamic radicals, we are either ignoring these attempts or trying to divert America’s attention to groups opposed to the President’s destructive Socialist agenda.


UN elects Iran to commission on women’s rights…huh?

The outrage from the Obama whitehouse was…wait, what outrage? Coming from a President who attacks Israel at every turn for building homes in their nation’s capital, I guess this is all too expected.

Consider the case of Soraya M., adapted from a book by French-Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam into a movie that is both terrifying and shocking. The story is a true one, about a woman whose husband wants to divest himself of a marriage so he can paedophilically marry a 14 year old girl. He finds a way when his wife cooks dinner for a neighbor who has lost his wife–charging her with adultery.

In the West we assume most stories end well, justice prevails over evil, but this was not the case for Soraya M, as Sharia law convicted her, buried her to her waist, and she was stoned to death.

Unlike Mr Obama, we cannot foolishly project our values upon other cultures. Iran is not a good place for human rights.

A recent story from FOX details one Iranian Police chief who is threatening to arrest women with suntans.

“In some areas of north Tehran we can see many suntanned women and young girls who look like walking mannequins,” he continued. “We are not going to tolerate this situation and will first warn those found in this manner and then arrest and imprison them.”

You’ve come a long way baby!

I have argued before with people who like to compare us to the world, saying that many members of the U.N. hate the USA. Let them hate us, we have the high ground. Much of the U.N. reminds me of a Star Wars bar scene of various dictators who allow paedophilia, white slavery, the caste system, female genital mutilation, anti-semitism, violation of women’s rights (women as cattle), and outright slavery and genocide.

Yet we are the “bad people”? Personally I could care less about the world’s perception, what worries me is that the President seems to agree with them.

This action by the United Nations should remove all credibility they may have had. It is tantamount to electing Nazi Germany to a commission on Jewish relations.


A ticket to ride–to San Francisco

Hot Air talks about the move by San Francisco to ban travel to Arizona by public employees in a recent story.

Eager to burnish the city’s reputation as a Liberal enclave, it seems that Mayor Gaven Newsome quickly jumped at the chance to make a headline. Illegals take note, one of the most friendly sanctuary cities in America toward you is San Francisco.

I have a solution that I think would aid both Arizona, and the illustrious and deteriorating (although beatiful) city of San Francisco:

Give a free one way ticket to any illegal who wants to relocate to San Francisco.

This is a great solution. Think about it, Arizona can reduce it’s problems with illegal immigration, the lawlessness, the high unemployment, the benefit costs, and they can say they are looking out for illegals. After all, if you move to an American safe haven, they don’t have to return to Mexico.

San Francisco can then claim the highest illegal population in America. They can change their city language to Spanish, and staunchly enforce it. Speaking English will become a “no no”. Sure, it will be costly, but considering that Nancy Pelosi is your congressman, just ask her for the money to do it. It is for a worthy cause.

Overnight, San Francisco can become Mexico, and why not?

Right now, illegals already want to leave Arizona. People will not pick up day laborers, for fear of breaking State (which mirrors unenforced Federal) law.

Everyone gets what they want: Arizona residents, who favor the new law, get to rid their state of many problems, while San Francisco can express it’s endless political and Social Liberalism.

I am sure that if a fund is made to help pay for this, the American people will help out these people. Since 60% of Americans support Arizona, a great many will contribute to the “Illegal relocation project”. Sure, a ticket can also be back to Mexico or whatever country of origin if you wish, or to San Francisco.

Let’s make this happen people!