One of my best friends, a devout Roman Catholic, reminded me recently that you should always watch out for the guy who is first in line for communion, or who has the longest rosary. I never really understood the whole rosary thing, and I say that with no disrespect, but I do understand his point: beware of the person who wears his superior morality on his sleeve. I say that goes a thousand times for a politician who claims to be above politics. If it wasn’t already obvious that this empty suit the democrats have put up to lead the free world, a product of the Chicago political machine denying that he is a politician, is the equivalent of the long rosary guy it should be now.
As you no doubt have heard, the man-god, Barack Obama (D-Big Bucks) announced that he will be the first presidential candidate since Richard Nixon to forego public financing in the general election. This decision despite saying last November “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” I guess we can expect that if elected he will be equally aggressive in protecting us from our enemies.
And by the way, this is where a shout out to the Republican nominee is due. Hey, Senator McCain, nice job getting the money out of politics with your idiotic, anti-free speech campaign financing law. You and Rich Feingold can stamp your feet all you want, while “He Who Walks on Water” spends your campaign into the ground and our country into Jimmy Carter’s second term.
Senator McCain is not the only one expressing disappointment over Barack’s latest flip flop (see Jerusalem, NAFTA). It has been called “hypocrisy at its worst,” and “insincere” by the do-gooder group Public Citizen. The WaPo called “his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take,” and said “politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they’re doing it.
So what? Does anyone think Obama almost cares about any of these critics? To him, they are a minor and very ephemeral nuisance. They are right, of course, but all Obama cares about is winning. That’s all he’s ever cared about. What part of Chicago pol do people not understand? David Brooks had it right on Friday: “Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.”
The story behind the story is that if the public campaign financing system is “broken” as Obama says, why are he and the other democrats contributing to the continuing hobbling of the FEC by refusing to confirm President Bush’s nominees? And here’s the best part–why did the man-god oppose Hans von Spakosky? Mr. Ethics in Government and Count Every Vote opposed this nominee to the FEC because when he was a Justice Dept. lawyer, Mr. Von Spakovsky had a role in approving a Georgia law that requires voters to present a photo ID at the polling place. Even democrats are having a tough time using that shriveled fig leaf of an argument that the photo ID requirement “discriminates” against the poor, the elderly, or whatever mascot of the week they decide to use because everyone knows that if you are concerned about the integrity of the vote you don’t want illegal aliens and felons voting in demagogues who will give them government handouts. Even Jimmy Carter isn’t buying it, for crying out loud. Everyone that is except people who believe that a Chicago politician is the savior who can rescue our country from corruption.
That’s right: former Clintonista and occasional party girl for the world’s dictators Madeleine Albright. Here’s a list of the rest.
Warren Christopher? Greg Craig–the guy who helped deliver an innocent child to Castro? Clintonista Richard “Winnie the Pooh” Danzig? Are you kidding me?
Speaking of Mr. Hope and Change, there was an interesting article in yesterday’s WaPo, entitled “Why We’re Gloomier Than the Economy.”
On one level, it is as unintentionally hilarious to see another MSM propaganda outlet engage in head scratching over why many Americans have a distorted impression of our economy–Gee, why could that be? Could it be the incessant drumbeat (or do you say dumb beat?) from the likes of the WaPo and friends over “the end of the American dream,” ” an economy as bad as the great depression,” and similar drivel? We’re talking about change here, though, not more of the same, which is why I found the following passage quite interesting:
“But so far, the economy is holding up better than it did during the last two recessions in 1990 and 2001. Employers haven’t shed as many jobs, the unemployment rate is still relatively low, and gross domestic product has kept rising. Things are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Great Depression, or even during the severe recession of 1982-83. The last time consumers were this miserable, in May 1980, the jobless rate was 7.5 percent and inflation was 14.4 percent. Now those numbers are 5.5 percent and 4.2 percent respectively.”
MMM …who was president in May, 1980? Ask any Obama Kool-Aid drinkers that you know, particularly the wet behind the ears ones, if they know.
The hysterical response of Barack Obama and his always amusing band of slobbering media flacks over President Bush’s speech to the Knesset yesterday was not surprising. I’ll take that back. OF COURSE, they were apoplectic when the president spoke of “the false comfort of appeasement.” The blatant use of the “a” word to accurately characterize what they like to call “remaking America’s image in the world” sends them into orbit.
It is yet another example of the undeniable truth: if you want to enrage a liberal, don’t lie about them. They spend enough time lying about themselves for it to have any impact. No, if you want to enrage a liberal, tell the truth about them.
Predictable or not, I found it hilarious to watch democrat apparatchiks, along with the democrats who haven’t run for office (that would be Obama’s MSM cult) express their anger over the president’s “deeply offensive comparison” (Hillary), which was “outrageous,” “ridiculous” “bull***t and “malarkey” (Joe Biden) which was a “probable swipe at Barack Obama” (that news hag on MS-NBC whose dad was Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy guru, which should disqualify anyone in the family from being taken seriously about anything if you ask me).
The real side-splitting stuff came when a couple of these pinheads suggested that this statement by the president was a gift to the Obama campaign because it “elevated” him to the level of having a foreign policy debate with President Bush, which they characterized as roughly equivalent to being invited to challenge Michael Moore to a situp contest. Victory is assured. This “Bush the idiot stepped in it again!” was the most humorous part. That and listening to MS-NBC’s David Schuster pronounce Neville Chamberlain “ne-VILL’ Chamberlain.”
Mr. Not Ready for Prime Time himself expressed his sadness over the “false political attack” launched against him by the president. Don’t you love it when people try to cop that whole “I’m far too dignified and hyper-intelligent to ever allow a mentally-challenged ignoramus to upset me. I just feel sad and sorry for the poor chump” routine?
I watched the speech a few times, and maybe I missed something, but I didn’t hear the president mention Wonderboy. Of course, I can understand why he and anyone else might get that impression given that BHO has consistently expressed his desire to play patty-cake with every America-hating dictator he can find. Sen. Obama (D-Hamas) loves the image of the International Man of Peace, who will follow in the footsteps of his democrat predecessor, the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, figuratively and literally, if he becomes president, surrendering to our enemies in the hope that they will love us, going hat in hand to visit our enemies, who will no doubt struggle to stifle their laughter while listening to him try to reason with them. There is the possibility that the pompous gasbag could bore them to death, but I don’t think we should hold out hope for that.
The president’s statement was simply a mirror that forced the democrats to face the hideous reality that is their collective white-flag waving puss. I’m not surprised that they recognized themselves.
Yesterday morning’s news reminded me again of the consequences of government-sanctioned racism, otherwise known as “affirmative action”: the whiny sense of entitlement, the enormous chip on the shoulder, the need to pretend that the mediocre are really the most excellent among us.
The reminder came in the form of a person; the poster girl for the above-referenced characteristics, Michelle “how am I supposed to pay for ballet lessons on my lousy $300,000 a year salary?” Obama.
Malignant Michelle wants everyone to know that it’s time to change the subject and stop talking about the Church of the Black Panther that her politician husband used to help launch his career in Chicago, and do you know why? Think for a second. Remember, these are liberals we are talking about. For the children, of course!
Yesterday in Indianapolis, she said that talking about the racist, Black Liberation Rev doesn’t do anything for her children’s education. I think that’s all taken care of, Mrs. O. Don’t they attend the University of Chicago lab school, an expensive private school? I don’t know how you manage to afford it in this mean country!
When the libs pull out the “for the children” card, you know their critics are on to something and that something is the scandal surrounding Barrack Obama and Rev, J. Wright.
Anyone who buys the baloney that “He Who Walks on Water” was trying to peddle on Tuesday, that he didn’t know what Rev. Wright was all about, must also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Obama has dis-invited Wright to the presidential announcement. Then on Tuesday, he just dissed him. However, six weeks ago in Philadelphia, Obama said Rev. Wright was like family, and I guess he meant it. After all, if you can throw your grandma under the bus, anyone is fair game, no?
On March 18, Barack Obama (D) said “I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” Now, suddenly, today based on the speech that his spiritual advisor/mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, gave yesterday to the National Press Club, has disowned, disavowed, and just generally dissed the man, saying:
“The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe they ended up giving comfort to those who prey on hate.”
The person I saw yesterday, and Friday night on Bill Moyers’ show, was definitely not the person I saw screeching “God damn America!” and “Barack knows what it’s like to live in country controlled by RICH WHITE PEOPLE!!!”
Yesterday Jeremiah Wright seemed to be having a veritable lucid interval compared with the raving lunatic Obama kept by his side for 20 years. He appeared almost rational the last three days, as opposed to the way he appeared behind the pulpit.
Senator, what changed? In your statement severing ties with the man who mentored you and helped facilitate your political career, you mentioned Rev. Wright’s praise of whack-job/anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. You mean the guy your church gave an award to in December of last year? Are you suggesting that you didn’t know about that either? You didn’t know that your pastor blamed the United States for 9/11–”AMERICA’S CHICKENS have come home to roost!!!”–in much more virulent terms than he did when he reaffirmed that opinion yesterday?
You never heard his claim that the evil racist American government created the AIDs virus to kill black people? Apparently, there was a lot about this guy that Mr. “Good Judgement” didn’t know. Yet he was a member of the church for 20 years, was married by Rev. Wright, who also baptized his children. Senator, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
I think that the BHO Kool-Aid drinkers, the emotionally-driven Cult of the Personality crowd who couldn’t tell you at gun point what position Obama has on the issues, will be placated by this blatantly expedient, hasty 180 by their guy.
The apparatchiks, who share Jeremiah Wright’s opinion of our country, will spin this speech as putting the matter of Obama’s anti-American world view to rest. Nothing to see here. Move on.
This bitter clinger doesn’t see it that way. I agree with what Sen. Obama said Sunday during that kid glove appearance on Fox News Sunday: his pastor’s views are an a legitimate political issue, as his relationship with unrepentant former terrorists and current America haters Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Repeating: connect the dots, people.
Apparently the thing that most irked BHO was that Wright claimed that Obama’s previous half-assed denunciations of Wright were politically motivated. That was the last straw. Dare I point out once again that the way to really anger a liberal is to tell the truth about him?
Or was there a back room deal, setting conditions? I don’t know. I do know that Barack Hussein Obama’s appearance this morning on “Fox News Sunday” laid another canard to rest, that being the old saw about Fox being an unapologetic tool of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
I hope you libs were paying attention. Chris Wallace should be your new best friend. I haven’t seen such a softball interview since the Miss America pageant. I think I finally understand how Obama’s going to end all this “polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points.” No one else will get a word in edgewise! Chris Wallace barely did, but that was just as well. Chris let this elitist gas bag, who he referred to as a “former law professor,” which BHO is not, blather away in his typical sound-and-fury-signifying nothing style that is nauseatingly familiar, with no follow up, even when the answers were laugh-at-loud ridiculous.
What a disappointment! Perhaps this kid glove treatment was part of the agreement that ended the “Obama Watch,” a 24-style ticking clock showing that it had been 772 days since Obama promised to grace FNS with his majestic presence and his soaring rhetoric before finally getting his Alfred E. Newman mug on camera this morning.
I can think of no other explanation for the textbook journalistic malpractice Chris committed in this interview, except what I have dubbed the “ Stephanopoulos Effect,” that is, the terror that strikes supposedly “objective journalists” silent when they think of a tough question that should be asked of a liberal candidate. It is named after the excrement storm that came down on George S after he asked BHO questions about the collection of anti-American whack jobs that advise, mentor and befriend him, and who no doubt as a result had to eat lunch all alone at his desk for at least a week.
No questions about Michelle’s “mean country” or “not proud of my country” comments. No questions about the man my friend John Kass of the Chicago Tribune calls Obama’s personal real estate fairy, Tony Rezko. No demand for specifics on his repeated promise to lower gas prices. No mention of “typical white person,” even when CW asked Obama whether race was a factor in this election, naturally avoiding the obvious: but for his race, BHO would still be a “community organizer” in Chicago. Speaking of which, why doesn’t anyone ever ask this empty suit why he considers that gig such a major resume enhancement? I was a community organizer; that is, I went to a place where people were poor, uneducated and irresponsible, and explained to them that their circumstances were not their fault. I explained to them that they are victims and that it’s Mr. Charlie’s fault. When I left, they were still poor, most of their kids were still born out of wedlock and still dropped out of school, but now they had someone else to blame. This is a job to be proud of? What am I missing? This morning BHO cited his work as a “community organizer” (read paid trouble maker) as a reflection of his values. OK.
On Being “a Uniter”
Here’s an example of one of those laugh-out-loud answers to a question. This question had potential to rip the mask off the phony “post-partisan” scam that BHO has hypnotized the MSM into promoting for the last two years. Chris started out well by citing John McCain’s “maverick” views on several hot button issues, and asked “As a president, can you name a hot button issue where you would be willing to buck the democratic party line and say ‘you know what, Republicans have a better idea here?’” BHO started to ramble, and finally settled on that issue that has people in this country passionately engaged, regulation, specifically “cap and trade” to regulate pollution. There’s a hot button issue if I ever heard one. Then he babbled about supporting merit pay for teachers, while at the same time doing his usual two step, as in when he says that he supports the individual right to keep and bear arms, but wait, that doesn’t mean I don’t think cities shouldn’t be able to absolutely prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning hand guns. Or when he says he says “everything is on the table” when it comes to reforming Socialist Security, and then in the next breath says not letting us keep a dime of our own money in private accounts. That’s a bridge too far for the crypto-Socialist BHO. On education he says he supports merit pay, IF the criteria for “merit” aren’t limited to some sort of mean standardized test because sometimes kids are 3 or 4 years behind when they get to school. Let me translate: if the teachers’ unions can live with the way it’s structured, I’m all for it.
But here was the really hilarious answer I’ve been leading up to. Chris cited the Gang of 14, opposition to partial birth abortion and support for defense of marriage acts as bipartisan acts that BHO avoided, and asked He Who Walks on Water “do you really want a partnership with Republicans or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?” at which point I burst out laughing just at the question. Good grief, Chris, what do you think? The answer was priceless. Watch for yourself.
Readers of my scribblings know that yesterday I ripped the mask off the supposedly “tough” questioning of Barack Hussein Obama, by pointing out that even though George Stephanopoulous and Charles Gibson did ask him about those “manufactured issues” like his friendship with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, his mentoring by a racist raving lunatic named Jeremiah Wright and his disdain for wearing an American flag pin, they never held his feet to the fire when he didn’t answer.
As usual, I’m out of step with my friends in the MSM. Check out the WaPo TV critic Tom Shales foaming at the mouth. They are apoplectic over it because Barry was even asked the questions. My lefty friends, you guys don’t know what tough questions are.
If I could ask Barry a few questions, you’d see this TelePrompTer-dependent empty suit stammering like Ralph Kramden, which come to think of it, was pretty close to what happened Wednesday night. Even more hilarious, even though he’s been an “objective journalist” for several years, suddenly the left-wing moonbats are concerned that George might not be objective because he helped Bill Clinton get elected. When was the last time you heard the phrase “conflict of interest” describing any of these fugitives from the democrat party (Tim Russert, who used to work for Mario Cuomo, Chris “the Screamer” Matthews, who, God help him, used to write speeches for the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter and others)? We’re hearing it now applied to George S, who probably is going to have to eat lunch by himself for a while.
I think I realize the real reason that they are so upset. Yes, they didn’t like the questions about Obama’s radical pals or his embrace of the liberal idea that “patriotism” means the ability to point out all the bad things about America you, Hugo Chavez or Ahmanidenijad can dream up; which is why last October Obama said as opposed to what he said Wednesday night, that he wouldn’t wear a flag pin. No, George and Charlie didn’t point that flip-flp out. No matter. The Obamaniacs are still seething with rage. The following video snippet illustrates it:
If I, then a wet-behind-the-ears, fairly clueless undergraduate, had turned in this answer in my Econ 101 class, I would have received the “F” it deserves. But then my professor wasn’t a brainless left-winger who responds to the endless repetition of meaningless buzzwords (“Wall Street” “Halliburton” “neocon”) like my dogs respond to Beggin’ Strips. “Bush lied people died.” A+!
What do you suppose got into Charlie? He stated the fact that when you reduce taxes, revenues go up, and he got Barack Obama to admit that in his view tax policy is less about revenue and more about “fairness,” so even if you collect less money for all those beneficent government programs, it’s better to punish the evil “rich” (anyone with a job basically under liberals’ definition) than to let people enjoy the fruits of their labor. Maybe one of you libs can do me favor and answer the following questions:
Where does the government get the moral authority to take the fruits of one person’s labor and give them to another? In 1850, we had a system like that in the southern states. We called it slavery.
Why is letting someone keep the money he or she earns “giving” them something, as in the hackneyed and idiotic liberal mantra “tax cuts for the rich?”
I know that the barking moonbats are upset that ABC pulled back the curtain a bit, fearing that the public may finally learn who Barack Obama really is, but I think this tax question really sent them over the edge. If people understand that liberals are lying when they claim that raising taxes is “for the children,” and realize that it’s really about their belief that it’s their role in life to make everyone equal in their happy socialist utopia, they aren’t going to compliantly submit and pay.
Back when I was studying for my Master’s final, the Husband thought it would be nice if I had a little fun project to give my fevered brain a rest from memorizing the enzymes in the Kreb’s cycle (don’t ask) or other aspects of Exercise Phys that would be on the test.
Years earlier I had told him about how much fun I had as a 9 year-old with a model called “The Visible Woman,” a miniature anatomical model of the human body with a clear transparent shell enabling a viewer to see all the organs inside. I remember painting the liver a beautiful garnet, and carefully painting the indentations inside the shell blue for veins and red for arteries. So he figured what better toy for me than a similar model called “The Brain and Skull?” I loved it! Every couple of hours, I’d take a break from the books and work on it. I painstakingly painted the cerebellum, the cerebrum, even the corpus callosum, and assembled them into a drop-dead gorgeous little brain, about 1/6th actual size, or approximately the size I imagine inhabits the craniums of most network news anchors.
Some of you might find it presumptuous for me to cite this experience in certain contexts, say, to suggest that I am qualified to perform brain surgery. And yet, judging by the latest statement from He Who Walks on Water, which regular readers and listeners to my various radio shows know I’ve been Barack Hussein Obama since 2004, I am absolutely qualified to take a scalpel to your skull. In fact, I’m more qualified than people who have been actually performing brain surgery for years. Consider the following statement he made in San Francisco regarding his choice of a running mate, reported on the Huffington Post:
“Obama took a question on what he’s looking for in a running mate. “I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I’m not as expert on,” he said, and then he was off and running. “I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area–foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.”
“It’s ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know.”
First of all, who is he? Alanis Morrisette? Is “Ironic” really the word he’s looking for here? Let me translate this Obamaese: “In other words, here’s what I’m saying folks: the paradox is that because I have NO experience in foreign policy, I’m the MOST qualified. I was did after all major in International Relations.” (Yes, he did say that last year on Chris Matthews’ show, which no doubt inspired more of that leg-twitching in the MS-NBC screamer that happens to him whenever the man-god speaks.) Oh, yeah: this is the person we want in charge of keeping us safe in a post-9/11 world, particularly given his views about “restoring” habeas corpus rights to foreign terrorists.
I’m not the least bit surprised that Barack Obama thinks he knows more about foreign policy than Sens. McCain or Clinton. It’s clear that he thinks he knows more about everything than anyone else on the planet.
The last guy to tell us that inexperience was a resume enhancement nearly destroyed the country, the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter. Obama is the second King of the Useful Idiots and his statement is more proof of that.
Don’t say I didn’t warn you. The resident ditz on ABC’s “The View” (and on that show, that’s saying something, believe me) and sometime “contemplative conservative” Elisabeth Hasselbeck says “me too!” as she joins the slobbering over Barack Hussein Obama.
Friday morning HWWOW (He Who Walks on Water) aka Barack Hussein Obama submitted to what promised to be a nauseating slobberfest on ABC’s daily hen party, “The View.” The allegedly “conservative” Elisabeth Hasselbeck has expressed admiration for the crypto-socialist, would-be terrorist coddler Obama on more than one occasion. Of course, this airhead reserves the right to change her mind. Recall this exchange from less than a year ago on Fox’s “Hannity and Colmes”:
COLMES: Have you always been a conservative?
HASSELBECK: You know, I’ve always been — you know, I consider myself a contemplative conservative. And my parents were independent. I never knew who they voted for. They really birthed in us a spirit of freedom of thought and just evaluating individuals. And that’s what I think people really need to do in this election, maybe not so much look at the party color or animal.
COLMES: I think we too often do judge people. Are you liberal or conservative? And then we judge people based on what their political philosophy is and not judge them as human beings.
HASSELBECK: I don’t define myself as conservative personally. I seriously don’t. I would hope that people wouldn’t do that to any of us here at the panel. You know…
There’s a real hard intellect! Is this pinhead really walking around off the leash?
If you enjoyed that laughable exchange, you might want to check out what happened Thursday on this yak fest. You no doubt heard about Chelsea Clinton’s “none of your business” response to a question about whether the way her mom handled the Monica Lewinsky situation hurt Hillary’s credibility.
Here’s the video of Chelsea’s response and the harpies at “The View” talking about it.
Recall that after the disgusting news of her dad’s spending part of the work day braced against the wall in the Oval Office with his pants down around his ankles surfaced, Hillary rode to the rescue on the “Today” show, blaming the sordid episode on the “vast right wing conspiracy.” As a proud member of the VRWC, I’d like to take credit, but I’m afraid that it was all Bubba’s doing, with the enthusiastic cooperation of an intern only a couple of years older than his daughter.
Now, in typical Clinton fashion, Chelsea tries to peddle the same “it was about sex, it’s private, it’s none of your business” garbage that her parents and their supporters have been mouthing for 10 years. What a chip off the old block!
Sadly, this fairy tale, to borrow a phrase, hasn’t gotten any more plausible with age. It was our business what our employee, the president, was doing during the workday. We all had our consciousness raised by feminists in the ’80’s, and so we know he was also engaging in unacceptable sexual harassment, or at least he would have been had he been a corporate CEO or an officer in the military. That aside, and to the point of the subject at hand, Hillary’s response is what we’re talking about, and sorry, Chelsea, nice try, but it IS relevant that your mom tried to sidestep this situation by blaming someone other than the perp (that would be your horn dog old man.)
Now, back to Thursday’s episode of “The View.” I warn you. This video may induce projectile vomiting.
Isn’t that beautiful? Chelsea and Elisabeth are BFF’s! She handled it “with wit?” I guess if you’re a half wit yourself, this is what passes for wit. Could this be the reason she doesn’t see how pathetic Chelsea’s answer to a perfectly legitimate question was? Or is she just stupid? Perhaps both. I think I’ll go with that.
So later Friday, when the man-god appeared on this waste of bandwidth, we didn’t expect these harpies to ask the following questions (and they didn’t disappoint):
Why has your story regarding the purchase of your mansion and the role of political fixer Tony Rezko changed so many times?
If you didn’t know that your pastor Jeremiah Wright had blamed America for 9/11 and said things like “God damn America,” why did you dis-invite him from the ceremony when you announced you were running for president?
What do you think of your wife Michelle’s college thesis in which she pledged to use all her talents to benefit black people?
What did you mean, specifically, last week when you referred to your grandmother, who raised you, as a “typical white person?”
What a disappointment! Perhaps this kid glove treatment was part of the agreement that ended the “Obama Watch,” a 24-style ticking clock showing that it had been 772 days since Obama promised to grace FNS with his majestic presence and his soaring rhetoric before finally getting his Alfred E. Newman mug on camera this morning.
