Iran: What's the Dealio?

Obama and Iran have entered into an historic agreement. Essentially, they have agreed to disagree and to look the other way while Iran builds a nuclear bomb. This is perhaps not the deal most people expected, but with Obama in charge was there really ever any other possibility? Here are the problems with the deal.

(1) It's Iran: In all deals with Iran, there is always one overriding problem: you just can’t trust Iran to keep to anything they agree to. No deal with Iran is worth the paper it is printed on. So if you reach a deal with Iran, then you are already a failure... and a moron.

(2) Fuzzy Promises: Turning to the deal specifically, the next problem is that the deal leaves all the key areas fuzzy. Here are some examples:

● Iran will be limited in its research and development into improved centrifuges, though apparently the limits are rather fuzzy and both sides already disagree about what they are. Those improved centrifuges, by the way, can’t be used to enrich uranium for ten years. After that, all bets are off. So expect an "Obama bomb" in 2025.

● Iran must uninstall some of its current centrifuges. That sounds good, except they are allowed to replace them with the more efficient centrifuges they are working on. Also, the numbers don’t make sense. When this process began, they had 12 centrifuges. They brought this up to 20,000 over time. They only run 9,000. Now we are told they need to reduce that amount to 6,000. That’s way more than 12, and it leaves 14,000 centrifuges ready to be run whenever they feel like breaking the agreement.

As an interesting aside, we are also told that Iran can’t enrich any more uranium. But if that is true, why let them spin the 6,000 centrifuges? The only reason to do that is to enrich uranium... which they aren’t allowed to do... except they can spin 6,000 centrifuges.

● Iran is required to reduce its current stockpile of enriched uranium from ten tons to just a few pounds – less than is needed to make a bomb. But no timeline is given for this, nor is a method specified. Obama is claiming Iran will export the material to places like France, but Iran is claiming they can dilute it rather than getting rid of it. That will leave the stuff ready to be returned to military use at any point. It's a bit like "diluting" bullets by storing them with chocolate.

● The IAEA and the US wanted Iran to admit that they have been researching bomb design and detonators and to identify what they've achieved. Some groups even suspect Iran has developed a detonator. Iran has refused to answer this. The agreement is really vague on this point and even team Obama only says that Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns,” with no mention of what those measures are.

Essentially, on every significant issue, Iran has agreed to do something, but that something is always nebulous and vague and, even then, disputed.

(3) Trust, Don't Verify: Obama’s talking points meant to sell us on his “brilliant” plan also do a good deal of misleading bait and switch work. For example, Obama claims that the agreement subjects poor Iran to extensive snooping by international inspectors, with some surveillance lasting for up to 25 years! Sounds great, only, there will be no inspections allowed of military sites... where the Iranians would be building the bomb. Sure, you can look in my garage, but not in my secret lab in the basement.

And don’t worry about all those centrifuges Iran has because they aren’t allowed to spin them at the secret sites... only, no one is allowed to snoop at those sites, so no one but Iran will know what is happening there. Yet, John Kerry flat out lies in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe: “To be clear, there is no aspect of this agreement that is based on promises or trust. Every element is subject to proof.” Right. Except the key provisions.

Obama also claims that sanctions could be snapped back into place if Iran cheats, but the agreement doesn’t actually allow that. Instead, it includes a dispute resolution provision that will likely take years before sanctions could be re-imposed... if ever.


So there you have it. I can’t say I’m disappointed per se because this is exactly what I would expect from an agreement negotiated by Obama. Seriously did you expect anything better?

Anyways, the way I see this going is that Iran will do whatever it wants and Obama will try to cover for them until it becomes too obvious to sustain. Then he will blame the next administration. In the meantime, Saudi will develop its own nuclear bomb. What happens next is anybody’s guess. Pakistan and India have avoided a nuclear war and Pakistan is batshit crazy. But Pakistan also doesn’t have Israel as a scapegoat, nor do they have a terrorist wing who would happily transport a bomb to some western city and set it off.

I guess the only thing we can say for sure is that Obama’s policy of pretend problems don’t exist is about to leave the world a much more dangerous place... again.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Does Obama Love America?

No.

Easiest article I’ve ever written. Later folks.

Just kidding. Let me explain my thoughts. And to do that, let me start by saying that I’m not a believer in any of the retardisms that have beset the talk radio “genoooine conservative” movement:

(1) Obama is not a Muslim, secret or otherwise. To the contrary, he strikes me quite clearly as an agnostic. Evidence? He is never seen worshiping. He has never demonstrated even the slightest knowledge of the tenants of any religion. In fact, whenever he talks about religions, he demonstrates a massive degree of ignorance. He also never makes religious references. And when he does talk religion, he speaks in rational third-person terms that belie a lack of emotional connection. Basically, his cold tone, his words and his ignorance suggest that religion is not part of his life and that he sees religion essentially as a crutch other people rely upon.

(2) Obama is not a communist sleeper created by the Boogeyman Saul Alinsky or any other communist, terrorist or whack job ‘60’s radical. All the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Obama is someone who generally leans left in the sense of believing in big government, but has no actual ideology to speak of. Not only has he never been able to enunciate an ideology, but he’s proven to be entirely detached when it comes to crafting an agenda... he can't even outline his ideas in a broad sense. Frankly, he’s just not smart enough or dedicated enough to have an ideology.

(3) Obama is not a black radical. He might not even be a racist actually. How do I know? Because I have more black friends than Obama does. Indeed, I can’t think of any black friends Obama has. All the friends of his of which we are aware are married, white couples with elitist pedigrees. And the few blacks in his administration were already in the Democratic system when he appointed them.

So what is Obama and how do I know he doesn’t love America? Obama is a guy who found himself at Harvard based on racial preferences. He apparently didn’t bother to learn anything, but instead took advantage of the condescending racism of white liberals who kept passing him along and patting him on the head telling him how great he was despite his lack of effort or skill. Essentially, he is the product of social promotion and, consequently, he suffers from a severe lack of skills combined with a near-narcissistic belief in his own abilities... after all, everyone has always told him he is right.

The people who told him he is always right are the friends he made along the way, who are elitist liberals who liked the idea of having an educated black friend. They taught him that being "enlightened" requires one to have a “nuanced” view of America. “Nuanced,” in this case means always balancing good with bad and bad with good to reach a “fair” result. Unfortunately, this idea also is debilitating because it makes it impossible to judge right from wrong. What's more, having been taught that it takes nuance to be enlightened, his friends taught him to look down upon average Americans, who they assured him are not nuanced thinkers and must be led to enlightenment.

The result of this is that Obama is a man who lacks an emotional connection to America and its people, whom he views as backwards and dangerous. As a result of this, he does not trust average Americans and he feels he must constantly rein them in. He is likewise indecisive because he can’t properly evaluate right and wrong, so he defaults to letting events settle themselves while lecturing us not to judge the situation. And finally, because of his arrogance and quasi-narcissism, he has no tolerance for criticism.

That’s Obama for you. He’s a man who doesn’t love American because he doesn’t love anything. He only knows that he is the smartest man in the room, that separating right and wrong is nearly impossible, and that the American public is dangerous.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Caption This - Obama, the Jokester

I know you see the title and think this is going to be a creepy Biden photo. Yippee! But we've been there and done that. And anyway, that was just creepy Biden being creepy Biden. But what is this?

Shouldn't the Secret Service be doing something? I guess not since they are the same ones who forgot to lock the front door of the White House and allowed a crazy person to run around for a while. Anyway, this photo was taken to sell Obamacare...yeah, really.

Oh, yeah, the above photo is a snapshot from a commercial. Yes, this is what our President does while the world is blowing up around us...he makes a commercial to sell Obamacare for BuzzFeed...



Now if he could only decide what the "root causes" of all of those darn "extremists" are...[Hint: Jobs...]

Post your captions, comments, or just do what I am doing, and cower in the corner and breath very deeply until you calm down...

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

SOTU #7 - Open Thread

“My presidency is entering the fourth quarter. Interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter.”
- President Barack Obama




Tonight we will hear the 7th State of Union Address from our President. And for the alst few weeks, he has been traveling around some of those 57 states trying to sell his 7th year agenda which interestingly does not seem to involve the new Republican-led Congress much. Let's see, from the Whitehouse.gov site "teasers", we can expect some of the following:

1. The overwhelming success of Obamacare;
2. The success of the economic recovery (the website touts the biggest recovery since the 1990's with a chart and all!);
3. Something about free Community College for all;
4. Raising taxes on the rich and giving tax breaks to the middle class;
5. Something about "Wall Street";
6. Introducing all the guests of First Lady Michelle, most of whom will be Obamacare success stories;
7. Something about "he hopes he has the opportunity to work with the new Congress...yada, yada, yada";
8. And all of the executive actions he will sign when he can't work with Congress;
9. Univeral high speed internet and Net Neutrality (which I still don't understand);
10. More free stuff he wants to give to the American people;
11. How the world is a much safer place since 2009;
12. Ending the War in Afghanistan (you know that happened, right?);
13. How hard he will work to work with Congress to pass comprehensive Immigration legislation (or if not, by more executive orders);
14. Easing relations with Cuba;

Stuff he probably won't mention -
1. Global terrorism, though I expect he will say something about the recent "workplace violence" in Paris;
2. Ebola;
3. The $18 trillion debt which has grown from $10.5 trillion in 7 years;
4. How much he is looking forward to working with the new leadership in Congress.

So until the fun starts at 9:00pm ET, please feel free to add to either list or to expound on anything that might interest you...like cricket or the latest episode of "Downton Abbey" (really, what is Lady Mary up to?)...

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Thoughts On Cuba

Obama seems to be casting about almost randomly for anything that will create a legacy for him. Too bad for him that he doesn't understand what the American public actually cares about, nor is he apparently capable of working well enough with others to get help in finding a legacy. Oh well. His latest effort, loosening relationships with Cuba, is a good idea, but ultimately pretty meaningless toward his future. Here are my thoughts...

This Is Long Overdue

I get that some conservatives are stuck in the paranoid world of Cold War politics, but loosening relationships with Cuba is something that should have been done long ago. Why? Because history has shown that the only way to change a regime, short of military occupation, is economic liberalization. Yep. Sanctions don't work. For sixty years now, we have done our best to change Cuba's government by imposing strong economic sanctions on Cuba. The idea was to cripple their economy so the government would collapse and capitalists (and mobsters) could return to Cuba and exploit its economic qualities, e.g. cigars, sugar, tourism, gambling, etc. Despite our best efforts, those sanctions resulted in jack... nothing... squat... zip... nada. Why? Because sanctions don't work.

Indeed, look at the history of sanctions and you won't find a single instance where they worked... ever. And the reason they don't work is really quite simple. First, sanctions allow the sanctioned country to create an us versus them mentality which makes enduring the sanctions into a matter of pride and loyalty. That keeps people from attacking the regime over the sanctions. It also lets the sanctioned regime blame their economic and political failures on the sanctioning country. This becomes the perfect excuse for all failures. Third, sanctions just don't work because they will always be overcome by the power of human ingenuity. You will see this time and again. In fact, interestingly, despite a total embargo and continual bombing, Nazi Germany actually produced more war material at the end of the war than it did even at the height of its power.

Heck, conservatives get this when it comes to places like Iran and China etc. Yet, when it comes to Cuba, somehow nostalgia kicks in and seems to make conservatives stupid... "James Bond can't be black! And by God, we'll get those Cubans in another couple hundred years!"

At the same time, economic liberalization has crushed communist regime after communist regime. The communist regimes in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China and Vietnam all fell apart when their people got a taste of economic freedom and the joys wealth can bring. Sure, China and Vietnam are still technically run by the communists, but their control is little more than an illusion today, with their leaders understanding that maintaining their massive growth rates are the only thing keeping them from being tossed out by their own people. In the Soviet Union and East Europe, the inability of those regimes to deliver wealth led to their overnight collapses and replacement by regimes that shut down the secret police and opened the stock markets. Was it always perfect? Hardly, but it was fast and furious and fundamentally transforming. Sanctions, on the other hand, never even started the ball rolling.

Cuba will be the same thing. As American money and businesses pour in, a middle and upper class will form within weeks and they will demand an end to the regime's dominance. These are the people who keep the regime alive today. And when the regime is stripped of their support as they find a better deal getting rich, the regime must either retreat or collapse. I guess they could call out the Army, but that's almost never worked to maintain control once the public gets money-fever. In fact, outside of a temporary victory in China, which gave way to liberalization almost immediately, I can't think of an instance where this has worked.

So the moral is simple: if you want to change a nation, liberalize economic relations and let greed crush ideology. If you want to pretend to change a regime while actually strengthening it, then pimp for sanctions.

Obama v. The GOP

Obama thinks this will help him and his legacy, but it won't. This change will mean nothing to Obama's legacy because the public just doesn't care about foreign policy or cold war relic policies. In fact, all it will do is add to the vague sense the public has that Obama is weak.

On the other hand, there is nothing to be gained by fighting this or attacking Obama. The best the GOP can do in that regard is to be ignored. A more likely result is they will be seen as being a pain in the ass who are obsessed with ideology and ancient feuds that no longer matter to the public.

Where this change will actually matter is in Florida electoral politics. And in that, the GOP is best situated to be the winner. The Cuban community in Florida is largely Republican, though the younger ones are more Democratic. And while the older Cubans are generally opposed to liberalization, they will ultimately be the ones who benefit the most from this change because they will be the ones who fund all the businesses that will be opening in Cuba. That means the GOP's Florida base will soon be much, much richer. And if the GOP helps them in this, through the normal "client services" in which Congress engages, then the GOP will be directly responsible for helping that effort to go smoothly. You can make a lot of friends that way... newly rich, powerful friends. In theory, the Democrats could do this too, only they don't have the connections to the community that the GOP does and they are seen as sympathetic to the wrong people, i.e. communists. What the GOP needs to avoid is trying to throw up roadblocks to economic development which let the Democrats become the heroes of the Cuban community. They also need to avoid changing the immigration preferences for Cubans, which will not sit well with the community. Beyond that, they should seize this opportunity to transform Cuba and the electoral landscape of Florida... Carpe Florida!

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Stopping Obama's Executive Orders

I've said before that there is only one way to stop the left from doing something. That is to take the very tools they create and use those tools against them. Logic, human nature and history all suggest this is true. Why am I raising this point? Because there is only one way to stop Obama's executive orders on immigration, global warming and whatever else: turn his usurpation of power against the Democrats. Let's discuss.

Let us begin with a quick history lesson. The Democrats were fine impounding money until Richard Nixon did it to their favorite programs. They invented the special prosecutor and used it with abandon against Reagan and Bush. They only changed their minds when the Republicans used it against Clinton. Then they raced to kill it. They happily used the Department of Education to nationalize education as they saw fit... until Bush used the same tools they created to impose his views on the country's education system. Suddenly, the Democrats discovered a deep love of state's rights and they demanded an end to federal interference. They loved judicial activism, until conservative judges began using the same tools to reverse liberal laws. The examples go on and on, on many levels. In each instance, the Democrats created some new lever of power which they used to impose their will on the system and an unwilling people, and they only gave up that power when the Republicans finally started using it against them... nothing else stopped them.

Indeed, in each instance, nothing short of the Republicans using this new power against liberal interests had the slightest effect on them. The conservative response typically began with hand-ringing about this being an abuse of power or illegal. Liberals laughed it off. Then conservatives tried to find ways to cut off funding or pass laws to stop the abuse. Again, liberals laughed. Why? Because if conservatives succeeded, all they would achieve was stopping the left from winning more gains... nothing would be reversed. And if they failed, then the liberals could continue to win more gain. Basically, they won no matter what. It was only when conservatives finally started using this power to reverse liberal policies and impose conservative ones that liberals finally saw a real potential for harm to their cause and they rushed to kill these new powers.

Why this matters now is simple: Obama has created a new tool to impose his views on immigration and global warming on the country by Executive Order. The conservative response, as always, is to shout that this is illegal and to seek to cut funding or pass laws stopping Obama from doing this, harrumph! But as the above demonstrates, this is no threat to the Democrats. It's a win-win for them, with the worst case being that they get some of what they want.

That's why we need a change of strategy. To stop Obama, we need to make it clear that we will use the same tools of Executive-imposed non-enforcement to neuter their favorite environmental laws or affirmative action laws or Obamacare provisions. Sure, the Democrats can reverse those actions the next time they win the White House, but eight years of ignoring Obamacare, for example, would be more than fatal to the law. The Democrats will immediately see the risk to everything they have built in Washington and they will freak out and work their butts off to find a way to stop anyone from being able to do this.

That's how you stop Obama, by making it clear that the cost of his ideological tantrum will be the neutering of all the laws they cherish. In fact, some leftists are already worried about this.

BTW, as an aside, there is a real problem with what Obama has done on immigration. His administration may decide not enforce the laws, but he can't grant an amnesty. That means the next administration can still deport these people. Basically, the best he can achieve is to give these people a two year stay of execution. That's hardly going to be worth it to these people, especially if they need to out themselves to make it happen. By comparison, eight years of the IRS not enforcing the Obamacare penalty will crush the system's actuarial assumptions... so will eight years of slow-walking subsidies to insurance providers, etc.

As always, the Democrats have much more to lose from this than we do, provided conservatives are willing to fight fire with fire.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democrat versus Democrat

As we near the end of a President’s reign, especially an unpopular one, the members of the President’s party start to go their own way. This can range from simply talking about new issues that had been de-prioritized by the current administration to actively attacking the lame duck President. The Democrats are in the middle of that at the moment, and it’s going to cause them serious problems. Observe...

Here are some big examples of recent attacks by Democrats on Obama:

(1) Sen. Chuck “Chuckles” Schumer came out and basically blasted the Democratic obsession with Obamacare. He noted that this was not what was concerning the public at the time and he suggested that putting their eggs in this basket made the Democrats seem out of touch. He also suggested other problems with the law and he blamed it for destroying the Democrats in the midterm elections. Chuck seems to be setting himself up as a “prominent critic” of Obamacare... the only possibly positive legacy Obama has.

(2) Sen. “Dingy” Harry Reid is apparently on the verge of cutting a deal with Republicans to put in place $400 billion (over 10 years) in tax breaks. The White House has had no input into this and actually rallied liberals to kill the bill... after a veto threat. Think about that: a veto threat aimed at something Harry Reid is trying to pass!

(3) Sen. Robert “Illegal Fundraiser” Menendez has been working with Republicans to shape a new sanctions bill against Iran, despite Obama trying to play the “carrot only” game with Iran... and despite Obama claiming that GOP fears about Iran are paranoia.

(4) Obama wants to enact trade deals with Europe and the Pacific Rim countries to lower trade barriers. The Democrats are freaking out about this and are attacking the proposals as bad for American workers.

(5) Harry Reid’s aide David Krone has publicly blamed Team Obama for their losses in November... and aides never speak publicly without permission.

(6) Mary Landrieu attacked Obama over the Keystone Pipeline and arranged a vote to try to pass it over his objections. She fell only one vote short in the Senate. After her 12 point loss last week, she and others blamed Obama for failing to support her.

(7) Several Democrats, especially talking heads, have been positively freaking out about Obama’s immigration order. Others on the left are angered that he didn’t go any further. No one is happy and no one is staying silent.

(8) Lots of leftists and black race baiters are attacking Obama for not doing/saying more about Ferguson... or New York.

All of this is typical and means the Democrats are engaged in at least a low grade civil war. That’s rarely good. What makes this even worse though, is that this was isn’t about ideas, it’s about finger pointing, i.e. they all want to blame someone else for the party’s recent failures. At least in ideological battles like the GOP just fought, you have the chance to fix the things that went wrong rather than just whine that it was everyone else’s fault. Here the goal is basically just to pass the blame.

That said, there is an ideological component brewing in this fight and it’s one that is potentially highly destructive....

I wrote about the decimation of their princelings recently and in that discussion I noted that the Democrats seem to be making a mistake embracing those people in the first place. Specifically, by elevating a bunch of women, blacks, Hispanics and gays to the leadership positions to replace the boring looking/sounding white males who currently are “the face of the party,” the Democrats appear to be sacrificing their ability to pretend that they still are the party of mostly-conservative white working class males. Right now, with soft-spoken old white guys like Harry Reid (who claims to be a devoutly religious farmer who loves hunting) as the face of the party, the Democrats are able to sell the idea that they are not as urban, not as ethnic, not as anti-traditional values as they really are. But by swapping urban blacks, women, gays and Hispanics for the likes of Harry Reid, they are losing the carefully staged images they need to push this lie. In my opinion, that will cost them in rural America.

Anyways, adding to this, I am now seeing lots of articles being written by leftists who are arguing that the Democrats can no longer claim to have any real support among “working class whites,” and that they should accept this and openly embrace an agenda that better fits their new core, i.e. feminists, race baiters, gays and minorities.

I cannot tell you how much I hope they buy into this advice and change the image of their party. If they do, they will lose another 10% of the white vote, plus they will struggle with Hispanics and Asians (the fastest growing group of immigrants), who very much want the American dream... not the welfare dependency substitute.

It’s going to be fascinating to see how this plays out, particularly as all the old “moderate” Democrats fade away after being destroyed by Pelosi’s banzai charges and then Obamacare, and the face of the party becoming increasingly urban-ideological. If they also embrace a far-left urban agenda, they could well destroy themselves.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Follows Lead of Dictators

So here is what Obama is planning vis-à-vis immigration, and it’s truly stunning. In fact, this is the first thing I’ve seen any modern President do that I would qualify as genuinely dictator-like. Indeed, the reason he claims he can grant amnesty to five million illegals is the precise kind of false legalism that only people like Hitler have tried, typically as they try to work their way out from under the restraint of law. Observe.

Obama is claiming:

(1) The Executive Branch has prosecutorial discretion in terms of who it will deport. Essentially, the Executive gets to decide which cases it will pursue and which it won’t.

(2) Prior Executives have granted protection to particular groups from deportation.

(3) The Executive Branch has the authority to grant work permits to the groups it seeks to protect.

(4) Ergo, the White House intends to use its discretion to extend this protection and to refuse to prosecute half the illegals in the US and to issue work permits to them in the process.

WOW! Let me explain how unbelievably wrong this is. First, prosecutorial discretion is one of those things that shouldn’t exist in an ideal world, but it does because this world is not ideal. The idea is that on a case by case basis, prosecutors should have the discretion not to prosecute someone who has technically broken the law but prosecuting them would lead to an injustice. But this type of decision is made on an individual basis and usually is only invoked where a significant injustice would result from prosecution... it has never been used as a means to nullify a law, as Obama is proposing now. In fact, doing so would be completely unconstitutional as it would give the Executive the power to ignore the legislature at its whim. To even contemplate this is dictator thinking and shocking.

Next, while the Executive has extended protection to some immigrants in the past, there has always been a very strong justification. Typically, these cases involve the protection of fundamental human rights or the preservation of life to protect these groups, such as where they are refugees from a war, ethnic cleansing or natural disasters, or where they face some sort of institutional harassment that borders on murder, e.g. gays in Africa, women seeking to avoid forced abortion in China, etc. Basically, it is to avoid returning them to a situation where they might be harmed. It has never been used as a means to circumvent the law or without a strong justification. Obama would be doing this on an unprecedented massive scale with no justification whatsoever.

Finally, let’s just square the circle by pointing out that if Obama thinks he has this right and power and that it’s justified, why only apply it to half the illegals? How does that make sense? What he is basically saying is that these people need to be protected from some evil that will befall them... but he’s only willing to help half of them. That discredits all of this even more. It shows he has no justification for protecting these people or he wouldn't leave half to suffer. It also shows that he bizarrely thinks that by only doing half, he can somehow sneak this through... incredible. And it shows that he's not acting on principle, he's acting deceptively. Even more importantly, it shows that he does think like a dictator and that the Constitution and rule of law mean nothing to him. In fact, this idea is so rotten that a great many liberals are freaking out that he may actually do this.

What has liberals most freaked out about this is something Obama apparently hasn’t even considered. Specifically, any future administration can use this same outlandish argument to invalidate any law they choose... or to apply it only to individuals and groups they dislike, e.g. why not exempt ____ from tax laws?! This is crazy! See, what Obama is doing is turning the US into a Banana Republic, at best, or a nascent Nazi Germany at worst. Once rule of law is rendered meaningless, it could take generations or bloodshed to restore it. It took our country almost 150 years to truly become a nation governed by laws rather than a nation controlled by powerful politicians who manipulate a graft-riddled government. This would undo that.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Wake Me Up Before You Vote Vote

I saw an odd headline the other day about Michelle Obama. According to the headline, she was encouraging “women and minorities” to “wake up,” like some sort of call to arms. This struck me as an interesting appeal, especially given Obama’s track record with both groups. But it turns out that wasn’t what she meant. She literally meant to wake up and not to sleep through voting day. Good grief.

To start with, let me laugh at Michelle Obama having to tell her supporters to get their lazy butts out of bed. That really adds to the stereotype of her followers being lazy and useless, and it explains why they aren’t more successful. Seriously, what normal person needs to be told to get out of bed by their leaders? The pathologically lazy is about all who come to mind.

She did try to expand the point a bit to include those who simply aren’t paying attention, but that hardly makes it better. Basically, she wants her supporters to go grab their sleep nephews or college dorm mates, their indifferent aunts and neighbors, and the rest of their lazy families “who are like, no, I ain’t going to vote, or I couldn’t wake up.” So I guess laziness runs in families. Anyway, nice grammar, lady.

But let's look at the bigger picture, shall we? Let us assume Madame O actually meant “wake up and realize what is happening to you.” This is a rather ridiculous thing for her to say. Do you know why? Well, consider her behavior and her husband's record and you'll see.

First, Madame O has spent her time suckling off the taxpayers. Five star hotels. Shopping in the most expensive shops around the world. Taking Air Force One to restaurants. This woman has lived like Marie Antoinette on steroids. For her to claim that somehow these poor, supposedly-oppressed women and minorities should support her is borderline insane. Imagine if Warren Buffett made the same appeal! Not to mention, they already support her! Every penny of the social security they collect from the few who work and every dollar of the benefits the rest get that gets taxed goes to pay Michelle's lavish lifestyle. So her appeal to wake up really should be met with, "What the hell are you doing with my hard-earned money?"... and maybe a guillotine.

Then there’s her husband. He has presided over a collapse in minority employment, minority household incomes, and minority net worth. They took the brunt of the housing bubble because they owned the subprime homes and nothing was done to bail them out. They were tricked by liberals into getting worthless degrees in African American or Gender Studies which left them unemployable and with vast debt. Liberals run the schools that seem to specialize in not teaching minority kids to read and write or do math. And Obama has done nothing to shake any of this up, even as middle class white parents are pushing their kids into charter and private schools at amazing rates. To the contrary, he's tried to block the door to save his teachers union buddies. He didn't fix the housing issue either, preferring instead to send trillions to the nation's largest banks. He's done nothing to help small (minority) businesses get credit either.

From the ranks of identity politics, he’s presided over the collapse of the black Congressional district under the Civil Rights Act with nary a genuine peep. He’s watched helplessly as voter ID laws quickly spread around the country. He’s whined, but done nothing else, as Affirmative Action basically has been strangled by the Supreme Court. He did appoint a black guy as Attorney General and an Hispanic chick to the Supreme Court, but neither is all that competent and won't make anyone proud. Beyond that, his minority appointments have been few and far between, and the White House continues to pay women far less than it pays men, not to mention it fought the extension of benefits to gays for as long as Obama thought he could. And look at Hispanics. He’s made all kinds of false promises to them!

So what exactly has Obama done to help minorities? We know what he’s done to crush them, but what has he done to help? The answer is nothing.

You know, Michelle is right, it is time for minorities to wake up and to see that Obama and the democrats are not their friends. So yeah... wake up. Oh, and get out of bed and get a job.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It's The End of the World As We Know It...

Of all the things to write about, I have decided to turn once again to Micheal Savage. Why? Because Savage has given us a dire warning that should shake us to our very cores: we have one month left to save the country!

Savage has written a new book. In it, he apparently claims that from the moment of his election, Obama set out to cause an American Civil War by letting in a "flood of Central American illegal aliens and the entry of the Ebola virus to the U.S." Savage sees this as the "worldwide left... attempting nothing less than a socialist takeover of the world economy and global politics." He even claims that Biden admitted this when he stated the other day that the "post-World War II order is literally fraying at the seams." He then pounces:

“What was he trying to say?” Savage asked. “Was he playing like he’s suddenly discovered what he’s done to the country? And now he’s triangulating his opposition to make believe he’s the savior? It’s not just a joke,” he told WND. “We’re at the end of the road here.”

Hence, we must impeach Obama now!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Ok, let me point out first and foremost that if you believe anything Savage says, then you are probably a paranoid moron. Sorry, but it's true. Now let's take down this particular idiocy.

(1) When Obama took office, he had no idea that there would be a flood of Central America kids shipped north. So how likely is it that this was all part of some nefarious plan to cause a civil war? Oh, that's right, facts don't matter to the paranoid. Further, there were only about 30,000 of these immigrants. Compared to the two million immigrants the US adds each year, that's not even noticeable. Moreover, they're kids. Are we to believe that an "army" of 30,000 Hispanic children will undo the US? If that can happen, then we've got bigger problems than Obama.

(2) Biden is a big enough fool that anyone who looks for meaning in his words is an idiot. And to take something Biden said that's actually sort of right and to then spin it into an admission of some secret plot Biden is aware of is just downright moronic. No one... no one will ever make Biden part of their conspiracy. So if this is the best Savage has to support his claim, then he clearly pulled his claim out of his butt.

(3) Savage hasn't noticed, because I guess his bunker doesn't have much access to the real world, but the worldwide left no longer exists. It has devolved into a series of small whiner groups who each want separate things and don't really have a plan to get any of it. He also seems to have missed the fact that every leftist cause is imploding the world over. China, the last communist regime, declared that to get rich is glorious. Go capitalism! Whoops. The big socialist Eurozone has imploded in mess of budget cuts. Venezuela went socialist and they don't even have toilet paper anymore. Leftist politicians are on the run in Brazil and Argentina. Environmentalism collapsed in Copenhagen, thanks to Obama's indifference. Feminists pushed hard for laws requiring equal pay and that didn't happen... anywhere. The third world has rejected almost all of Western leftism as "cultural imperialism." The left was pushed out of the Middle East entirely as it was replaced with Islamic-based governments. And so on.

(4) If Savage really is worried about all of this, why is he trying to stop the civil war? Shouldn't he be hoping for the civil war, since the civil war will give him a chance to defeat Obama and restore America to its Ebola-free glory? Oh wait... Savage doesn't actually want that. He just wants to sell you his book. As an aside, Savage goes out of his way to claim that he didn't write this book to make money because, by gosh, he doesn't need the money. snicker snicker Yeah, sure.

You know, the only reason I actually wrote about this was just to point out how far Savage has descended into retardery. There is so much to be upset about with Obama that I wish people with the power to reach the public would do an honest job of pointing those things out. The economy stinks and Obama's policies have made things worse, especially if you are young, poor or black. Obamacare made medicine more expensive for everyone, did nothing to improve quality, and only improved access marginally by giving it out for free -- something that could have been done without all the disruptions. He's done nothing to improve education. He's done nothing to improve race relations. He's done nothing to heal any of the rifts this country has. He's done nothing to improve our standing overseas. He's gotten us into wars that seem both endless and pointless the way they are being fought, which means soldiers are dying for no apparent purpose. He's done nothing to secure people's homes or pensions. He's done nothing to make Wall Street bailouts less likely or to free up credit for Main Street or to make life easier for small business.

This is what we should be focusing on with Obama, not some fantasy plan to cause a civil war in the US, not some paranoid idea that he wants to give us all Ebola by bringing a handful of patients here for treatment, not nebulous paranoid claims about Obama being a secret Muslim or imposing black power or some other bit of racist paranoia.

When you have someone as inept and disastrous as Obama, you don't need to invent paranoid fantasies to rally the public against him. And if you want proof of this, consider the fact that his approval ratings crash when Obama is in the news, and they rise when fringe-Republicans are in the news attacking him. This isn't hard folks... it just doesn't make Michael Savage any money.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Eric Holder's Legacy Is What?

There was an interesting article at Politico the other day. The article was written by a liberal who tried to explain Eric Holder's legacy. Despite being an attempt to make Holder look good, and even claiming that Holder was leaving "on a successful note," what struck me was how poor the article was at actually finding a positive legacy. Observe...

The article begins by admitting that not everyone views Holder positively... talk about understatement. The Republicans treated him like "a punching bag" over the "gun-tracking operation" Fast and Furious. They held him in contempt for not turning over documents related to that too, which is something that "will never totally be erased from his record." Oh, and he wasn't tough enough on Wall Street. But beyond that, Holder did some great stuff. Here's the list:

(1) His primary legacy will be his commitment to equal justice for all Americans.

(2) He had a prominent place in Obama's administration and lasted longer than most of Obama's Cabinet secretaries.

(3) He's black.

(4) His handling of Ferguson solidified his civil rights record as someone who cares about equal justice for all Americans.

Hmm. Ok. Let's examine these "four" points.

First, points one and four are the same. You can't double count his support for equal justice for all Americans by separating out instances. Hence, there are only three points here. Further, this claim is utter horse poop. Holder is notorious for taking the position that the nation's civil rights laws do not protect whites. His Justice Department pursued no cases of abuses by minorities. So the only way to say this is true is if you assume that whites are excluded from his commitment to equal justice. In other words, praise for his commitment to justice for "all" requires and asterisk that says: "statement does not apply to 72% of the population".

Further, let me add that Holder wasn't pro-gay when it came to marriage or benefits until five years into Obama's term. I guess they don't count either. And this is the same man who tried to argue that the terrorists at Gitmo had no rights... a position Bush never came close to taking. Clearly, they don't count either.

I would say honestly that what characterized Holder's term was an unprincipled laziness and indifference combined with a knee-jerk pro-black impulse. That's about it. And let's take a look at Ferguson. How brave has Holder really been? From the sound of things, the Ferguson police force is an epic mess. They clearly have not learned any of the policing lessons other departments have learned over the past 50 years. So what did Holder do to change that? Gee, he said he would send in DOJ to examine the department and put them under a form of super secret probation. But here's the thing, for as long as I can recall, most state and local police departments have already been subject to this. So this is nothing new. And what has this new plan done? Well, to hear the locals whine about it, nothing has changed. The police don't seem to have changed either. Essentially, Holder showed up, lectured us that we're all racists, did what Justice always does, and went back to his office to play with himself. Nice legacy.

And speaking of race, Holder is the guy who bizarrely claimed that America wasn't brave enough to talk about race when that's almost all we've been talking about since the 1960s... if not the 1860s. What else did he do to bring the country together or fix the racial divide? Nada... zip... jacksh*t. Again, nice legacy: one stupid speech and doing what DOJ already does one time.

As for number two, what kind of legacy is that? He was a lackey. Gee, thanks. Seriously, outlasting other cabinet secretaries is not evidence of quality. To the contrary, it's more likely evidence of anti-quality, of a man who never raises his head to cause problems or draw attention. As for being prominent, Holder is no more prominent than most other recent Attorneys General, and he's far less prominent than the dozens who actually did their jobs. In fact, had Holder done his job, he would have had bunches of things to investigate within the administration, but he chose the lackey route over the integrity root... and being a lackey never scores you a positive legacy.

As for being black, give me a break. That's the kind of "accomplishment" losers hide behind. If Holder had real achievements, the last thing anyone would be saying is, "Gee, his big accomplishment is being black and holding the job," especially as he didn't really earn the job -- he was appointed by his friend.

So seriously, where is Holder's positive legacy? His race is irrelevant to his accomplishment, except among liberals. His time in office produced no real groundbreaking changes of any sort. To the contrary, his department seems to have presided over a period when the Supreme Court took great delight in bitch-slapping everything Holder and friends thought would be law forever, and Holder did squat to fix it. He turned a blind eye as incompetence and law breaking ran rampant in Obama's administration. His pronouncements on race were rare, awkward, wrong and racist. His pronouncements beyond race were even more rare. He did nothing to clean up Wall Street, something both left and right would have agreed needed to be done. In fact, despite the left claiming he scored "record settlements" from some of the bigger banks, the stock of each shot up when the dollar amounts were announced. He took the "human rights outrage" of Gitmo and basically punted to the next administration. The legal advice he gave Obama about the filling of appointments was so bad that everything Obama did ended up being overturned by the courts. And so on.

Beyond that, I'm simply not sure what else to say about the man? He's an arrogant turd with the record of a lazy fool who likes the smell of his own farts. I would tend to think that almost anyone would have been a more effective Attorney General in almost every way.

Am I missing something?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama Rated A Failure

The Washington Post seems to be getting a real dose of reality lately. First, they put out an article admitting that the reason the Democrats are likely to lose the Senate - something the Post hasn’t admitted before - is Obama’s unpopularity dragging down their candidates. Now they put out an article admitting that a majority of the public sees Obama’s presidency as a failure. Yep.

The article in question addresses the results of a poll taken by The Washington Post and ABC News. It found that 52% of Americans believe Obama’s presidency is on balance “a failure.” Only 42% think his presidency has been “a success.” That’s horrible!

And it gets worse when you dig down into the numbers.

● 54% disapprove of his handling of the economy
● 56% disapprove of his handling of foreign affairs
● 65% say the country is on the wrong track
● 59% disapprove of his handling of immigration
● 56% disapprove of Obamacare
● 55% think Obama has done more to divide the country than to unite it

Yeah, that reeks of failure. And truthfully, I don’t think there is anything Obama can do to change any of this. He was counting on Obamacare becoming popular once people were forced into it, but it’s only gotten less popular over time. Beyond that, his legacy is bare.

Even one time sycophant Michael Moore said this of Obama's legacy: "When the history is written of this era, this is how you’ll be remembered: 'He was the first black president.' Okay, not a bad accomplishment, but that's it. That's it, Mr. Obama." Ouch.

As an interesting aside, the Democrats are mentally relying on polling showing that the GOP is way more unpopular than the Democrats as a way to tell themselves this isn't a problem. In that regard, this poll showed that Obama’s disapproval was at 54% and the Democratic Party’s disapproval is 61%, but the GOP’s disapproval is 72%. So they are somewhat correct. Nevertheless, their reliance on this is misleading. For one thing, when asked if people will change their vote to prevent a GOP senate, only 25% said that they were scared of a GOP senate. More people, 32%, actually say a GOP senate would be a good thing. Thus, people are more likely to vote for their local candidates than they are to worry about their approval of the GOP. Said differently, the 72% disapproval number is meaningless.

Even more to the point, however, the GOP’s low approval rating comes from Republicans, who won’t vote for the Democrats. Indeed, whereas 63% of Democrats approve of their party, only 34% of Republicans do. So this 72% number is entirely unreliable. Most importantly, though, Obama can’t really base his legacy on the opposition being less popular... life doesn't work that way.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

ISIL = Worse Than Hitler

It seems that things are about to blow up with regard to ISIS or ISIL or whatever they want to call themselves. So we should probably talk about them. Here are my thoughts.

● Islam Is The Root Cause: It’s funny how liberals love talking about root causes when it comes to crime or domestic violence or poverty, but somehow it’s anathema and racist to talk about it when it comes to Islamic terrorism. ISIL like al Qaeda and the thousands of other Islamic terrorist groups have continued to show that Islam breeds terrorists. There is no denying this. Hundreds of thousands of Islamists have joined these groups with the intention of hurting, killing and maiming innocent and unsuspecting people all in the name of spreading Islam by fear and force.

● Backing Into A Corner: Team Obama is really backing themselves into a corner on this ISIL issue. For years now, they have denied that al Qaeda or Iran or anything else really poses any threat to the United States or her people. Yet, this past week, various Obama team members, including Defense Secretary Hagel, played up ISIL as “something we’ve never seen before” and “more dangerous than al Qaeda.”

This is bizarre. Team Obama are literally backing themselves into a corner where they will have no choice but to start a ground war to eliminate ISIL. Indeed, it’s impossible for Obama to make ISIL out as an existential threat to the United States and the free world and then do nothing about them. And don’t forget, this isn’t a group he can sanction with any credibility.

● Elitist Priorities: It’s funny to me that the left always attacked Bush and Bush and Reagan for not caring about “real” people but instead only acting when the interests of their friends were at stake. So what are we supposed to make of this? Until ISIL decided to kill a journalist, Team Obama completely downplayed the threat from ISIL. Sure, they had taken over 1/3 of Iraq and a good chunk of Syria, but they were nothing but a group of thugs who would soon fail once the Iraqis got their act together. This wasn’t our problem.

Then they killed a journalist... a sacred journalist... and suddenly Team Obama springs into action: “This is an outrage! This is unheard of! They’re worse than Hitler!” What kind of statement is that? “Gee, so sorry all you dead Iraqi Christians and you wrong kind of Muslims, sorry all you girls who lost your human rights, but all of you together do not add up to the worth of the life of a single journalist.” This is what caring about real people is supposed to look like?

● Stop With The Money: One of the things Hagel said was that ISIL is better at fund raising than al Qaeda ever was. He links their funding to their threat level. As I’ve pointed out many times before, I find this to be intensely stupid thinking. It doesn’t take money to be a great terrorist. I can cause more chaos in this country than al Qaeda ever did with just a good set of tools. This idea that it takes money to rain destruction on a country is silly

● Cover-Up: Finally, I don’t think ISIL is any worse than al Qaeda, but I think Team Obama is pushing this line because he doesn’t want to be the president who let Iraq become a failed terrorist state. Hence, he’s planning to send in the troops. And the only way he thinks he can justify that while still pretending that Bush’s invasion was inappropriate it to pretend that something bigger and more dangerous has invaded Iraq than what caused Bush to go to war in Iraq. Ergo, his decision was smart and justified whereas Bush was being stupid.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Definition of Insanity Is...

Leftists can be so delusional. And they have such short memories. This time, it’s an article at Politico about their hope that Hillary can fix Obama’s foreign policy mess. This thing will make your head spin.

The article begins by telling us that Obama’s foreign policy is a mess. It’s a mess, says the author, because Obama’s foreign policy is basically “focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes.” The article then says that “‘Don’t Do Stupid Stuff’ may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine.” Wow. Of course, the article points out that this isn’t really Obama’s fault. See, since Obama was forced to spend so much time fixing “the economic mess he inherited. . . it’s understandable that Obama sought to limit America’s exposure to foreign conflicts.” Hence, it’s not his fault that even six years later he still has done nothing in the foreign policy arena.

Whoa! Hold the phone. That’s completely false.

Obama ran on the idea of closing Gitmo, fixing our foreign relations, and making the world love and respect us again. He promised to stop droning people, to end torture, to stop supporting dictators, to tell China to stop hurting our exports, and to refocus our foreign policy on do-gooderism. That was his promise, not “I’m going to ignore foreign policy while I fix the economy.”

And consistent with that, Obama tried to do precisely this when he first took office... sort of. Specifically, he did the bow and apologize tour and he expected that would fix the Middle East. He declared Bush evil and promised to never act that way again. He hit the reset button with Russia. At the same time, he tried to stand town tiny Honduras and bully tiny Israel into a settlement with the Palestinians. He sent people to dance for the Chinese and he promised to lead from behind at Copenhagen.

So the entire premise of this idea that Obama focused on the economy is wrong. The real problem is not that Obama did nothing, it’s that nothing Obama did worked. The bow and grovel tour didn’t change a thing. When nothing got better, Obama expanded droning and he continued to authorize torture until he’s out of office. Oh, and he expanded the droning into Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia. He also got us involved in Syria and Egypt and Libya, and he sent the navy to make sure any pirates near Somalia were OSHA compliant. Now he’s going back into Iraq. Iran is still going nuclear. He didn’t move the Israel-Palestinian thing even an inch, despite repeated attempts to beat the Israelis into submission. He’s also muddled his way through the Arab spring, ultimately siding with dictators in Egypt.

Standing up to Honduras didn’t work either. They ended up flipping us the bird and Obama walked away in a huff, leaving South American to Brazil, Argentina, and Cuba to carve up. Russia has been on a tear ever since the reset button, invading countries, arresting political opponents, extorting Europe, selling arms, and generally causing problems all around the world.

Obama did call out al Qaeda for racism in hiring, but they didn’t really change. He discovered he couldn’t close Gitmo because no one wanted these people back, so he tried to take away their rights and make them non-people. China laughed in his face and proceeded to cause problems in the region which are slowing building to armed conflict between China and Japan and some others.

Even at Copenhagen he discovered what happens when you let other people lead... they do things you don’t like, and he let them all but kill any international effort to fight climate change.

So let’s be honest. Obama did exactly what he swore he would in foreign policy and it blew up on him.

So what would Hillary fix? Well, this is where it gets interesting. See, the first premise was that Obama basically had no foreign policy. We just debunked that, but the author runs with it. He says Hillary must put human rights and democracy above our national interests and must stop dealing with evil dictators. She must support popular uprisings. And she must be willing to use the US military to back these things up.

But that’s exactly what Obama did!!

Moreover, at the same time the author says this, he attacks Bush for his “freedom agenda,” which he describes as “utopian.” The “freedom agenda” was an agenda to put human rights and democracy before our national interests and to stop dealing with dictators. Sound familiar?

Honestly, my head is spinning. So Obama did what Bush did, but it didn’t work, so the author pretends that Obama did nothing. He then tells Hillary to do what both Bush and Obama did, which didn’t work, but he criticizes Bush for advocating the very things he’s now telling Hillary to do! BANG! Arggg. My head!

Einstein's definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and to expect a different result. Think about that.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama "Checked Out" Long Ago

Sorry about the short article today, but I’ve got limited internet availability... primarily because I’ve been kidnapped by North Korea, which seems to want to trade me for a ham sandwich. Anyhoo, there have been a lot of interesting articles about Obama “checking out” of the job lately. I find it interesting that everyone sees this now, as I think this actually goes back much further.

To set this up, remember what I told you about Obama back in 2008. At the same time the genuine conservative world was quaking in fear about Obama being the ultimate triumph of INVINCIBLE EVIL GENIUS SAUL ALINSKY... hear his name and tremble in fear BOO!... I was telling you something very different. Based on my experience with other lawyers, it was pretty obvious to me that Obama was a dud.

Yep, a dud. It was obvious he had no plan, because he never mentioned one. All he did was speak in platitudes... “We need to fix thing. Make them better. Pull together. Be all we can be.” Not only did he not give details, he didn’t even give broad-brush strokes outlining his ideas. This was a huge clue that Obama simply had no ideas, no ideology, and no real plan of any sort. His plan was delusional hubris: “When I’m in charge, everyone will want to solve the world’s problems with me.” Only, that’s not how humanity works.

He also struck me as someone who simply had no idea how to deal with other people. To his mind, it was simple to solve problems – “you just sit down across the table from the other guy and solve it. What more do you need?” This shows tremendous inexperience. This is the kind of nonsense fresh young lawyers out of law school spew. They think they can solve the world’s problems with their personality alone. They think that all it takes is both sides being honest about what they want. It’s not. Self-interest is the name of the game for humanity and it conflicts, and you can’t solve conflicts with a smile. But Obama never got that; he genuinely believed he could solve anything just by talking. Naturally, this led to disaster after disaster for him.

This is when most people pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and try something new to achieve their goals. But not Obama. The problem is, as I said above, he’s not a man with any real goals or ideas. Consequently, he’s not a man who cares about anything in particular. So whenever he’s been faced with people who won’t bend to his will at the first blush, his answer has been to walk away to work on something simpler.

The first serious evidence we had of this was in foreign policy. I wrote about this too during the Honduras affair, where Obama showed that he couldn’t care less. He waved his hand and proclaimed what he wanted. Honduras told him to F* off. Obama was stunned. He didn’t know how to respond. So he walked away. Then he apologized to the Arabs, but they didn’t respond as he hoped, so he walked away again. China followed, as did Copenhagen. Each time, he just walked away as the other said laughed in his face. Soon, he gave up entirely on foreign policy. Indeed, his entire foreign policy has been about walking away at the first sign of push-back. So as far back as 2009, his penchant for disengagement was becoming obvious.

Then we saw the same disengagement in his domestic policy. He thought everyone would bow down and embrace Obamacare, but the RINOs stood tall and unified. Obama snarled his lips and walked off. He told the Democrats to handle it and he refused even to even given them his thoughts on how it should work. If you wanted to see him, you needed to find him on the golf course or a luxury vacation. By 2010, it was obvious he didn’t give a crap about being President. All he did was golf, enjoy the perks of power, and occasionally give a press conference swearing to kick someone’s ass if only people told him whose ass needed kicking.

So what you have is this. You have a man with no achievements to his name except agreeing to let himself be packaged. His handlers got him elected President and he made a grand show of changing the world. But the moment things don’t go as planned for him, and people don’t magically falls to their knees weeping at his brilliance, he scowls and walks away... unwilling to put more effort into it.

This is a man who checked out almost the week he checked in. He’s been on autopilot ever since. The man’s a dud.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Crazies Are Back

While I enjoyed taking last week off, other people had no such intention. In fact, we could call last week, “Return of the Fringe: The Idiots Want Attention.” Seriously, yikes. Here’s who tried to win your love last week:

● Grizzly Sarah Palin: The easiest way to kill a vampire is to drive a stake through their heart. To kill an attention whore, deny them attention. The moment the media learned that they could kill Palin by simply not talking about her, she imploded as a national figure. She has been desperate to find a national platform ever since. While our little site here was on vacation, Palin was letting it be known that she would happily join The View... you betcha.

When her overtures were denied, she decided to try to incite the fringe again. This time she screamed “IMPEACHMENT!!” Not that she hasn’t screamed it before, but this time she assured that the time had real come, if only those wimpy Republicans weren’t doing the Democrats’ work.

Not surprisingly, Drudge’s mouth-breather audience is right there with her. A poll at his site had 72% of his readers saying Obama should be impeached NOW, 15% said he should be impeached but not yet, and 13% used their brains and said no.

Of course, it never occurs to these fools that they have a zero percent chance of success, that by the time they got it done Obama would only have a few weeks left in office, that the last Republican Congress to try this got their butts handed to them, and that the politics on this would be entirely against them. Indeed, the public really dislikes Obama now. They see him as a joke because of his never-ending failures. Impeaching him turns the focus on the Republicans and their motives. It would be a Godsend for Obama and the Democrats as it lets them deflect all of their failures. It would probably cost us the Senate and it would likely give the Democrats a fresh start for 2016.

But hey, it would help make Palin relevant again.

● Rape Ape Todd Akin: Yeah, Todd is back. He dun wrote a book. And in this book, he admits what everyone pretty much knew – he was lying when he said he had been taken out of context when he spoke about “legitimate rape.” In fact, he doubles down on his idiocy by embracing the idea of there being legitimate rape (real rape, unlike fake rape, which is when the unclean woman lies about being raped), and he lays out his ideology about how you can’t get pregnant from rape – an ideology which relies on the discredited opinion of a discredited doctor.

Todd is also attacking all those RINOs who didn’t defend him when he opened his mouth and spewed his woman-hating crap. FYI, he uses the same list talk radio uses.

And lest you think that Todd is just a lone lunatic screaming in the woods, Mike Huckabee wrote the forward to his book.

Whether this ends up meaning anything is unclear. I doubt any voters will embrace him, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be brought into campaigns, which is exactly what I would be doing if I were a Democrat.

● From The Crypt: Pelosi reappeared last week too. First, she went to Texas to try to claim that all those kids slowly working their way under Drudge’s bed from El Salvador are Americans!. Uh, no. She’s seriously out of step on this. Even Obama has repeating that these kids need to be deported. Nice work, Nancy, keep people scared of your party!

● Clinton v. Obama: Finally, a new book by Edward Klein on the relationship between Hillary Clinton and the Obama’s has knocked Hillary’s book out of the top spot on the New York Times bestseller list. This book is called “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas,” and it outlines a very nasty relationship between the Clintons and the Obamas. It also lays out how the Obama’s have turned off people like Oprah, who has since been wooed by Hillary. The most interesting idea in the book is that Obama has promised too support Elisabeth Warren if she runs against Hillary.

While Klein is known for being a little sensationalistic and anti-Clinton, the things he says do seem to fit with things we can observe. And his conclusion that the Clintons are much better politicians and much better liked than Obama isn’t really a shock. Ultimately though, it will be very interesting if this turns into a feud between Obama and the Clintons through the primary.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

An Interesting Poll On Obama

There was a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll last week which really drives home how badly things have gone for Obama. It's causing unhappy liberal pundits to speak in funeral voice and to throw around words like "failed term" and "malaise." Observe some of its more damning findings:

● Obama's disapproval ratings are at all time highs, with his approval down at 41%. 45% disapprove, leaving him underwater.
● 54% of Americans think Obama lacks the leadership ability to get the job done: "cannot lead and get the job done."
● 57% of Americans disapprove of Obama's foreign policy.
● 41% say their view of the administration has gotten worse over the past 12 months. 15% say their view of Team Obama has improved.
● 31% think Obama has done a good job handling immigration.
● 10% of people plan to vote in November "to send a signal of opposition to Obama."

Obama is the past, not the future, so in many ways, this doesn't help us. But on the other hand, this is how his legacy is being defined, and through that, the value of liberalism. Said differently, Obama is discrediting liberalism in a way which hasn't happened since the 1970s. Now we just need to step in and help define Obama as nothing more than a typical liberal, and offer our own solutions to make life better for the public.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's "Moment" Has Arrived

There was an interesting article in the Financial Times the other day. To sum up the article, here is the money quote: “When leadership fails, people stop following. It appears in the sixth year of the Barack Obama presidency, that moment has arrived.” Yep.

According to the author, the American public has now had a long, hard look at the “talent” inside the White House and they have begun to “despair for real leadership and competence.” This is based on a recent CNN poll which found that Obama doesn’t gain a majority of support any of twelve issues surveyed. In fact, the closest he comes to having public support is on environmentalism, which is normally an overwhelming Democratic issue. Here that's his best issue because his disapproval only leads by 4% -- 49% to 45%. Interestingly, when it comes to healthcare, Obama’s key issue, his disapproval swamps his approval 63% to 36%. Similarly, on economic issues, his disapproval crushes his approval 61% to 38%.

Even more to the point, the author cites to an analysis by the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, who says that Obama’s polling problems are the result of a lack of competence. He notes that “the core of Obama’s appeal [in 2008] was the idea that he would restore competence back to the White House after President George W. Bush’s eight years.” But as the scandals keep piling up (the real ones, not the talk radio ones), it has become glaringly apparent that Obama is just as incompetent as Bush, if not worse. In support of this analysis, Cillizza cites to a Pew poll which asked the public about Obama’s “executive competence.” In February of 2009, the poll found that Obama was overwhelmingly seen as competent by 70% to 15%. By December 2013, this number had fallen to base-support level of 43% to 51%. In other words, the only people who still see Obama as competent are base Democrats.

According to the Financial Times, this is the result of three specific scandals. First is Obamacare, where the rollout of the website was a disaster even after 42 months and $400 million spent. Moreover, Obama promised everyone they could keep their plans, and yet millions got cancelled and millions more lost their doctors. And how did Obama respond? Did he fix anything? Did he fire those responsible? No. He proclaimed himself madder than anyone else and then said Sebelius had done a great job.

Then you have the VA scandal. This is an issue Obama himself campaigned on. He demanded more money and called Bush incompetent and uncaring. Congress then gave Obama $235 billion more over the next five years and what did that get us? Even worse incompetence... plus lies. Whistleblowers showed up to say that the VA was lying about waiting lists (an internal investigation found that 64% of facilities had engaged in wait-list fraud and 13% of schedulers had actually been trained in how to commit it), had falsified records to hide the truth, and that dozen of veterans died while being denied medical attention.

Obama responded by declaring himself madder than anyone else and did nothing until Secretary Shinseki decided he couldn’t take the heat anymore and resigned.

The third they identify is a national security catchall, which is basically the trade of five Taliban commanders for this dipsh*t deserter. As this story unfolded, Obama kept denying the truth, offering new reasons why this trade had to be made, and swearing he would do it again and again. Yet, at every phase, the White House story has fallen apart. And Obama’s attempt to defend himself by attacking the critics have blowup on him since the critics are the soldiers who did their best to save this skunk. Even the Democrats are freaking out about this one.

The key thread in each of these instances is that Obama appears clueless. Obama makes some claim about something being important to him. He appoints incompetent people to handle the issue. He makes some unicorn-like speech that fails to address reality and makes promises he can’t keep. Everything blows up when reality strikes. Then Obama acts indignant, does his “tell me whose ass to kick” routine, and attacks everyone else for somethingsomethingpoliticizedsomethingsomething, and he promptly retreats from the camera and responsibility.

That’s not competent leadership, not by any stretch.

Now, I would add a few other things that have gone wrong for Obama. Let’s start with Russia. Obama made political hay throughout his administration by accusing the Republicans of being hopelessly lost in the past when it comes to Russia. To much fanfare and self-congratulations, he pushed the reset button and ushered in a new age of friendship. But not only have recent events proven that to have been foolish and delusional, but Putin has gotten away with waving his tiny Russian pecker in Obama’s face for months.

Obama’s economic policy is impotent. He’s fired trillions of dollars in stimulus at the economy and all he’s gotten for it was grief, like when everyone mocked him for claiming that he “saved or created” jobs. There was an announcement this week that we’ve finally recovered all the jobs lost since 2008 this week. So it took Obama’s vaunted economic policy six years to get back to zero – and even then, this isn’t zero because these jobs have lower income and no jobs were created for all the people who came of age over the past six years. Add to this that millions of Americans are still upside down on their home mortgages. Consumer debt is at record levels. Unemployment is still higher than at any point under Bush. And work force participation is at the lowest level in history. Yet, Obama has stopped talking about his plan because he doesn’t have one. Basically, he tried one thing in 2009... it didn’t work... and he quit.

Consider his political timing too. Obama’s timing is so bad that it almost seems like he’s trying to undermine his own party during the elections. His release of his coal-killing rules came out the day after Mitch McConnell won the primary in Kentucky and liberal news sites are screaming that Obama just handed the Republicans that seat. He's done similar things repeatedly because he just doesn't think about the effects of his actions on others, even his friends.

This is all bad for Obama because this is where his legacy is being written. And what his legacy is morphing into is our first “lazy quitter” President. What you have is a President who has demonstrated that he doesn’t hire competent people, he doesn’t monitor them, he makes unrealistic promises, he never admits mistakes, he never learns from his mistakes, he doesn’t think about the consequences of his actions, he’s impotent when faced with someone of equal stature who won’t surrender, and he walks away when things go wrong. There’s not much there to love. And the polls are reflecting that.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Release of Bengdahl and other stuff...

Let's see, what is the controversy for this week? We all know the drill. The late Friday afternoon media drop of the week. Oh, yeah, the release of Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five notorious, high ranking members of the Taliban. YEY! No man left behind! The only US POW has now been freed. Oh, but the WH just didn't have time to let Congress know as is their obligation. Oops, they're sorry, but it was crucial. [God, I'm tired of this stuff and we have 2 1/2 more years of this crap.]

Right on cue, Susan Rice, someone we can always count on to tell the truth, hit the weekend pundit shows with the usual blah-blah and the "accusing the Republicans of making this political" has begun. At the same time Obama took to Air Force One and left the country just in time for the "narrative" to get muddled in "It's the Republican's fault" accusations. I hear that Obama was caught off guard with the negative response. He was expecting "euphoria", but all he got was a lead balloon crashing on the WH lawn. Even Diane Feinstein is upset. Once again we see the WH leadership playbook in action. Oh, and the big parade in Bengdahl's hometown has been cancelled.

Frankly, I don't really care much about Bengdahl's release. I tend to believe his own writings and all of his platoon mates who have come forward to say he deserted to go "walk-a-bout". I mean, this is a volunteer military, so it's not like he was forced to be there in the first place. He volunteered. He deserted his post. And no matter what the military decides to do in the way of a court marshal, all Obama has to do is pardon him. What I do care about is that five very dangerous people who even Diane Feinstein refused to release in an exchange for four years now, are now free to move about the world freely. Oh, yeah, Obama promised that part to the deal was that these five men would be monitored and that the Qataris would keep them under close scrutiny. Oops, well, Qatar has already released them to move about their country unmonitored and...oops, didn't Obama say we would would be monitoring their whereabouts. Well, no, we won't. Their families have already been flown to their side and I predict that they will be back in the bosom of the Taliban within the next few weeks, just as soon as all the hullabaloo dies down.

Why do we even bother. I had a friend who voted for Obama twice say to me how angry she is about all of this. When I informed her that Obama did this without informing Congress which is his obligation, she responded that Bush never informed Congress about going into into Afghanistan or Iraq. Uh, say what? I love her dearly, but you can imagine my response. Oh, yeah, isn't "blame Bush" part of the liberal program?

Oh, did you hear that the VA is stonewalling any investigation? Yeah, we are at Stage 7 of my 10 Stages to Leadership list. I wonder how long Bengdahl will have to wait for his appointment with the VA?

Anyway, I'm done. Any thoughts?

P.S. Remember a few weeks ago when I alluded that I was having to pay 247% more for my employee provide health insurance coverage? Yes, I am truly thrilled about Obamacare. Well, now I learned this week that, as of June 1, I only "technically" have health insurance, but no one can actually "verify" that I am covered. Yeah, my new insurance company is "backlogged" in assigning policies, so I won't actually be covered for the next "few weeks". I just hope that in the next "few weeks" I don't need any life-saving emergency procedures. My family may have to resort to my life insurance coverage to pay for it. I feel so much better about Obamacare now. Yeah, it is so working...

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

And The Idiots Implode

Just a couple of quick points tonight... telling points about the future.

● RIP The Tea Party: The Tea Party continues its march toward political oblivion. For some time now, I’ve told you that the GOP has learned to fight back and now intends to shut out the Tea Party crazies. The Tea Party recognized this and whined and whined and whined, especially about loyalty... hypocrites. Ted Cruz actually whined about the GOP leadership “carpet-bombing” the Tea Party.

Anyways, when the GOP first started fighting back, the Tea Party decide to put all of their eggs in one basket as a determined show of force. If they could execute Mitch McConnell, then the GOP would learn not to resist them. That was the plan.

Thus, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, every other Tea Party luminary, the Senate Conservative Fund and every other Tea Party group endorsed and donated to McConnell’s opponent Bevins. For months, Rush and Hannity and the other Talk Radio nut jobs smeared McConnell with any lie and distortion they could think of. They made it very plain: You could not be a reel ‘merikan and not see McConnell as worse that Pelosi.

I told you, however, that McConnell would win easily because the GOP had learned to beat the crazies. And that is exactly what has happened. McConnell crushed Bevins by a mile on Tuesday.

Naturally, the Tea Party is now trying to back away from this. This has taken several phases. First, they started saying about two months ago that winning wasn’t their intent. Instead, they claimed it was enough to raise awareness. That’s called “managing expectations” and that’s horseship. Secondly, many are now disclaiming Bevins as a real Tea Party candidate because (1) he lied about supporting the bailout, (2) he lied about his education, (3) he suggested that gay marriage would allow parents to marry their children, and (4) he gave a campaign speech at a cockfighting rally. In reality, however, he’s no different than the other crazies they’ve been backing all over the place. The only reason they want to disavow him now is because his was the race they couldn’t win... so they want to pretend they weren’t involved in the race. Drudge actually described Bevins as McConnell’s “ ‘Tea Party’ Challenger,” in quotes, to suggest that he wasn’t really Tea Party. Presumably, the establishment falsely labeled Bevins as Tea Party.

One article tonight laughingly claimed that the true Tea Party victory in this election cycle was in Nebraska, where the winner (Sasse) is an insider if ever there was one, is a friend of Mitch McConnell, and was originally framed by the Tea Party as the evil establishment guy until they switched sides and turned on the Tea Party candidate, re-framing him as the evil establishment guy. Apparently, this “victory” shows that the Tea Party is still strong.

In the end, the Tea Party isn’t going away anymore than Sarah Palin is going away, but they are finished. Tonight was the last nail the coffin needed. The money and the voters have jumped ship back to the GOP. It’s over.

● RIP The Democrats: This does my heart good. The Democrats are freaking out about the midterms. They are freaking out because they have no message as their push to raise the minimum wage (their only idea) hasn’t caught on with the middle class, and no one likes the things they’ve done. Heck, despite its faked success, Obamacare remains about as popular as herpes, as does Obama himself. Anyway, check out this quote about the Democrats’ feelings about Obama from Politico

Anxious Democrats point to Obama’s low-40s approval ratings as the kind of anchor-round-the-neck numbers that could cost the party real ground in the House, and enough Senate races to lose the majority. His failure so far to present a broad, compelling message on the economy — beyond an emphasis on raising the minimum wage that’s fallen flat with middle-class voters — has, according to internal Democratic polling and focus groups, left that group without a clear sense of what he or the party stands for beyond helping the poor.

Aww. I feel so bad for them! LOL! Actually, no I don’t. This is a party who has been relying on the GOP imploding going into the election. The GOP ended that danger by executing its turds. Now the Democrats have nothing they can run on and so much they need to run away from... Obamacare, record unemployment, falling incomes, 10 million under-water home loans, still too big(ger) to fail, not a promise kept, international humiliations, insults and injuries galore. Good luck with that. Couldn’t happen to nicer people.

● RIP Inevitability: Finally, Hillary’s campaign is suddenly in serious trouble. Ha ha. It all started when Karl Rove noted that Hillary’s medical record might be relevant because it sure looked to him like she had suffered head trauma when she fell.

BANG!! Faster than a speeding bullet, things blew up on Hillary. Experts appeared who commented on her appearance, the medical glasses she wore, and everything else that indicated she’s just too old and perhaps too concussed. The media tried to defend her, but once this genie got out, it spread. Soon even Democrats like Obama-clone Deval Patrick were saying that “inevitability” (the word associated with Hillary) is an ugly thing. There is now a very real chance that Hillary will ultimately fail before she even reaches the starting point in the primary race. If that happens, then the Democrats have no one with a name they can run... the cupboard is bare.

Interesting times.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...