Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Obama Goes to Copenhagen
I thought the country elected a president last November. I guess was wrong. It appears we elected an Űbermayor of Chicago.
Mr. Obama is going to Copenhagen this week to pitch his home town Chicago as the site for the 2016 Summer Olympics. This is the first time in history that an American president has been Pitchman-in-Chief before the International Olympic Committee.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama insists he's too busy to expedite consideration of Gen. McChristal's recommendation for more troops in Afghanistan, has his health care program to occupy his time, along with three recently discovered "homegrown" terrorist plots to ponder and the Iranian nuclear threat. Oh, yeah, North Korea keeps popping up on the radar too. Maybe we should add Multitasker-in-chief to Obama's many titles.
I still like "Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief" (TRiC) the best. We've been TRiCed since February, and I believe we will continue to be TRiCed for as long as Mr. O occupies the Oval Office.
BTW, I've heard on the news that Chicagoans are split 50/50 on whether they want the Olympics there at all. For all the hoopla and promises of an economic surge, history suggests that most Olympic Games venues absorb a net loss in connection with the Games.
(0) comments
Mr. Obama is going to Copenhagen this week to pitch his home town Chicago as the site for the 2016 Summer Olympics. This is the first time in history that an American president has been Pitchman-in-Chief before the International Olympic Committee.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama insists he's too busy to expedite consideration of Gen. McChristal's recommendation for more troops in Afghanistan, has his health care program to occupy his time, along with three recently discovered "homegrown" terrorist plots to ponder and the Iranian nuclear threat. Oh, yeah, North Korea keeps popping up on the radar too. Maybe we should add Multitasker-in-chief to Obama's many titles.
I still like "Teleprompter Reader-in-Chief" (TRiC) the best. We've been TRiCed since February, and I believe we will continue to be TRiCed for as long as Mr. O occupies the Oval Office.
BTW, I've heard on the news that Chicagoans are split 50/50 on whether they want the Olympics there at all. For all the hoopla and promises of an economic surge, history suggests that most Olympic Games venues absorb a net loss in connection with the Games.
Labels: Chicago, Obama, Olympics
Saturday, September 26, 2009
President Pantywaist?
Once again, more valuable insight into what Mr. Obama is doing to the United States is available from abroad than from our domestic "news" organizations, whose credibility is now approximately on the same level as whale poop in the view of many if not most Americans.
Here's Gerald Warner, writing in the UK's Telegraph:
When words like "President Pantywaist" appear in the public discourse taking place in the staunchest friend that the US has in the world, it can't be good.
(0) comments
Here's Gerald Warner, writing in the UK's Telegraph:
Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.I wish I'd said that.
If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.
###
Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world.
When words like "President Pantywaist" appear in the public discourse taking place in the staunchest friend that the US has in the world, it can't be good.
Labels: defense, Great Britain, media bias, Obama
Friday, September 25, 2009
Obama Worship in Burlington Township
As usual, I'm late to the party, but sometimes it's more fun to let details come out before commenting. Everyone who has electricity and doesn't depend on MSNBC for news has by now seen at least a portion of the creepy video of second graders at B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, NJ literally singing praises to President O.
Incredibly, the principal of the school has said she approves and would do it all again. Also, I heard on Fox News this morning that the superintendent of schools Burlington Twp. not only thinks the activity was appropriate, but has attacked whoever posted the video on Youtube for invasion of privacy. (The link is to a secondary source, but my attempt at this writing to access the Burlington Twp. schools website was unsuccessful--it is unclear whether the site is down because of traffic or the message was purposely tossed down the memory hole.)
As Michelle Malkin notes in her take on the incident (which I urge you to read), the person who originally posted the video, one Charisse Carney-Nunes, is a longtime admirer of Barack Obama and author of the children's book, "I Am Barack Obama." It appears that Ms. Carney-Nunes might have been present at the school when the video was made in February 2009. Be that as it may, according to Ms. Malkin, Ms. Carney-Nunes has removed the video from her Youtube account as of sometime in the morning of 24 September.
I have no problem with teaching kids about famous black Americans, nor am I concerned about teaching kids to respect the office of President of the United States. What bothers me about this video is the emphasis on Mr. Obama as the source of everything good and pure. The emphasis on him personally as a sitting President is what I find so disturbing, as well as the obvious political propaganda, e.g., "He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay." This crosses over into the realm of building a personality cult and political indoctrination, and that is absolutely contrary to the American tradition.
I saw a video bite this morning in which a mom whose child attends the school said she had no problem with the event, parroting school officials who said it was merely a recognition of Black History month and Presidents Day. I wonder what her reaction would have been if the name of Barack Hussein Obama were replaced by George Walker Bush?
The sad thing is, nothing is likely to happen to either the principal or the superintendent in future elections because the township, according to Fox News, voted almost 3 to 1 for Obama in 2008. So I guess we have a little San Francisco clone in New Jersey--no wonder a plurality of adults in New Jersey would move out of the state if they could.
(0) comments
Incredibly, the principal of the school has said she approves and would do it all again. Also, I heard on Fox News this morning that the superintendent of schools Burlington Twp. not only thinks the activity was appropriate, but has attacked whoever posted the video on Youtube for invasion of privacy. (The link is to a secondary source, but my attempt at this writing to access the Burlington Twp. schools website was unsuccessful--it is unclear whether the site is down because of traffic or the message was purposely tossed down the memory hole.)
As Michelle Malkin notes in her take on the incident (which I urge you to read), the person who originally posted the video, one Charisse Carney-Nunes, is a longtime admirer of Barack Obama and author of the children's book, "I Am Barack Obama." It appears that Ms. Carney-Nunes might have been present at the school when the video was made in February 2009. Be that as it may, according to Ms. Malkin, Ms. Carney-Nunes has removed the video from her Youtube account as of sometime in the morning of 24 September.
I have no problem with teaching kids about famous black Americans, nor am I concerned about teaching kids to respect the office of President of the United States. What bothers me about this video is the emphasis on Mr. Obama as the source of everything good and pure. The emphasis on him personally as a sitting President is what I find so disturbing, as well as the obvious political propaganda, e.g., "He said we must be fair today, equal work means equal pay." This crosses over into the realm of building a personality cult and political indoctrination, and that is absolutely contrary to the American tradition.
I saw a video bite this morning in which a mom whose child attends the school said she had no problem with the event, parroting school officials who said it was merely a recognition of Black History month and Presidents Day. I wonder what her reaction would have been if the name of Barack Hussein Obama were replaced by George Walker Bush?
The sad thing is, nothing is likely to happen to either the principal or the superintendent in future elections because the township, according to Fox News, voted almost 3 to 1 for Obama in 2008. So I guess we have a little San Francisco clone in New Jersey--no wonder a plurality of adults in New Jersey would move out of the state if they could.
Labels: Education, Obama, Personality Cult, Political correctness, politics, schools, Youtube
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Obama's UN Speech
I only heard snippets, but Obama just might be the most anti-American president in history. Carter was the first one.
(0) comments
Labels: Obama, United Nations
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Ol' Jimmeh
Former President Jimmy Carter--always good for a laugh.
If he weren't a former president, Mr. Carter would be annoying--sort of like a tomato seed that gets stuck between your teeth. But because he is a former president, he rises to a grander scale and becomes a national embarrassment.
(0) comments
If he weren't a former president, Mr. Carter would be annoying--sort of like a tomato seed that gets stuck between your teeth. But because he is a former president, he rises to a grander scale and becomes a national embarrassment.
Labels: Democrats, politics, race card, racism
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Obama and Ahmadinejad
There was a little flurry of Iran news during the week past as on Monday Mr. Ahmadinejad announced that Iran considers the nuclear issue closed and rejects any halt to [uranium] enrichment. Then on Wednesday Iran presented "a package of proposals to diplomats representing the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany" outlining the subjects on which Iran would be willing to negotiate with the civilized world.
Ahmadinejad clearly (and rightly, in my opinion) believes that neither the United States nor anyone else is willing to take whatever steps might be necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the delivery systems necessary to make them an imminent threat to their neighbors and even some European countries.
The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for what seems like at least a decade, without any results except more negotiations. The IAEA, the UN's nuclear proliferation watchdog, has been doing just that--watching as Iran developed the capability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade concentrations of U-235. Russia and China, both of which possess vetoes in the UN Security Council, have repeatedly refused to consider any but the lightest sanctions on Iran for violating UNSC resolutions regarding nuclear proliferation, and indeed Russia has even assisted Iran's efforts. So have many European companies, shipping dual-use materials to Iran that Iran has used in building its uranium enrichment industry.
President Obama either does not recognize the threat that Iran poses to its neighbors, recognizes it but does not believe it is either immediate or serious, or recognizes it but doesn't care. The administration has repeatedly said that it wants to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear ambitions, and is apparently still willing to negotiate even though Ahmadinejad has clearly stated that nuclear development is a non-negotiable issue. I believe this is whistling past the graveyard, except that in this case, the goblins are real and dangerous.
In an opinion piece (registration and/or subscription probably required) that appeared in the September 10 issue of the Wall Street Journal, former Senators Daniel R. Coats and Charles S. Robb and retired general Charles Wald stated that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear bomb using enriched uranium within a year, and urged Mr. Obama to begin gearing up for military action against Iran in case diplomacy failed to ameliorate the threat. They believe (as do I, FWIW) that without a credible military threat to back up diplomacy, Iran will continue on its merry way to developing the capability to, among other things, "wipe Israel off the map." If Mr. Obama thinks things are difficult now, wait until that happens.
In From The Cold blog has posted an analysis, which I commend to you.
(0) comments
Ahmadinejad clearly (and rightly, in my opinion) believes that neither the United States nor anyone else is willing to take whatever steps might be necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the delivery systems necessary to make them an imminent threat to their neighbors and even some European countries.
The Europeans have been negotiating with Iran for what seems like at least a decade, without any results except more negotiations. The IAEA, the UN's nuclear proliferation watchdog, has been doing just that--watching as Iran developed the capability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade concentrations of U-235. Russia and China, both of which possess vetoes in the UN Security Council, have repeatedly refused to consider any but the lightest sanctions on Iran for violating UNSC resolutions regarding nuclear proliferation, and indeed Russia has even assisted Iran's efforts. So have many European companies, shipping dual-use materials to Iran that Iran has used in building its uranium enrichment industry.
President Obama either does not recognize the threat that Iran poses to its neighbors, recognizes it but does not believe it is either immediate or serious, or recognizes it but doesn't care. The administration has repeatedly said that it wants to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear ambitions, and is apparently still willing to negotiate even though Ahmadinejad has clearly stated that nuclear development is a non-negotiable issue. I believe this is whistling past the graveyard, except that in this case, the goblins are real and dangerous.
In an opinion piece (registration and/or subscription probably required) that appeared in the September 10 issue of the Wall Street Journal, former Senators Daniel R. Coats and Charles S. Robb and retired general Charles Wald stated that Iran will be able to produce a nuclear bomb using enriched uranium within a year, and urged Mr. Obama to begin gearing up for military action against Iran in case diplomacy failed to ameliorate the threat. They believe (as do I, FWIW) that without a credible military threat to back up diplomacy, Iran will continue on its merry way to developing the capability to, among other things, "wipe Israel off the map." If Mr. Obama thinks things are difficult now, wait until that happens.
In From The Cold blog has posted an analysis, which I commend to you.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Obama's Health Care Speech
Angry. Glittering generalities. Gratuitous jabs at Republicans. How ya gonna do it? Kennedy nostalgia.
"We don't want to run the banks."
"We don't want to run the auto industry."
"If you pass the stimulus bill the unemployment rate will not exceed 8%."
"If you want to know what I'm about, look at the people I surround myself with." (OK, that's a paraphrase, or not, but it's essentially what he said. In any event, the old adage about you're known by the company you keep still applies.)
I don't believe a f***ing word this guy says.
If this bill passes, by 2016 we'll have a single payer health system in this country, and it'll look a lot like the UK and Canada systems. I'm 63, and under Obamacare I don't expect to make it much past 75, if I'm fortunate enough to get that far.
(0) comments
"We don't want to run the banks."
"We don't want to run the auto industry."
"If you pass the stimulus bill the unemployment rate will not exceed 8%."
"If you want to know what I'm about, look at the people I surround myself with." (OK, that's a paraphrase, or not, but it's essentially what he said. In any event, the old adage about you're known by the company you keep still applies.)
I don't believe a f***ing word this guy says.
If this bill passes, by 2016 we'll have a single payer health system in this country, and it'll look a lot like the UK and Canada systems. I'm 63, and under Obamacare I don't expect to make it much past 75, if I'm fortunate enough to get that far.
Labels: Canada, Health Care, Obama, UK
Monday, September 07, 2009
World-Class Cuban Health Care
Kim Priestap at Wizbang has a post today about Cuban health care--you know, that world-class free health care that Michael Moore drooled all over himself about in his movie, "Sicko"?
Turns out Cuba isn't the medical Eden that Moore made it out to be (Surprise, surprise!-Ed). Priestap links to this site, which has text and photos that purportedly show the real state of Cuba's free health care paradise. Caution! The photos at this site are very graphic and unpleasant. Do not follow the link unless you have a strong stomach.
I have no idea what's true, but I can tell you I don't believe Mr. Moore for so much as a nanosecond.
Query: Is this what our kids and grandkids can expect in 50 years under Obama's version of single-payer health care?
(0) comments
Turns out Cuba isn't the medical Eden that Moore made it out to be (Surprise, surprise!-Ed). Priestap links to this site, which has text and photos that purportedly show the real state of Cuba's free health care paradise. Caution! The photos at this site are very graphic and unpleasant. Do not follow the link unless you have a strong stomach.
I have no idea what's true, but I can tell you I don't believe Mr. Moore for so much as a nanosecond.
Query: Is this what our kids and grandkids can expect in 50 years under Obama's version of single-payer health care?
Labels: Cuba, Health Care, Michael Moore
Friday, September 04, 2009
Van Jones
Lots of to-do lately about the checkered past of Van Jones, the Prez's Green Jobs czar. First he admitted to being a communist, then he called Repubs a**holes, then he railed against white polluters and white environmentalists for directing the poison to minority neighborhoods. In the last couple of days it came out that he signed the 'truther" petition asking for an investigation whether the attacks of September 11, 1991 were an "inside job." (All of the above facts appear in the Wikipedia article on Mr. Jones, which bears a disclaimer that the neutrality of the article is disputed, so you might not see what I saw if you visit that page.)
Now Jones has issued one of those "politician special" non-apology apologies--you know, the kind where he says "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" without admitting doing anything wrong. He also says he does not now and never did agree with the truthers' claims. Query: why, then, did he sign the petition? Mr. Jones' office has issued a statement to the effect that he didn't review the document carefully before signing. I call bushwa--whether he read it or not, he certainly knew its tenor and purpose at the time. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I for one do not accept so-called "apologies" that are really insults in disguise; i.e., "I'm right and you're wrong but if you're too stupid to see that then I didn't mean to hurt your feelings while trying to educate you." I further believe that the statements Mr. Jones made before becoming a part of the Obama administration more truly demonstrate his real thinking than the measured, massaged and vetted comments that he makes now. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Jones is a racist, radical communist who wants to overturn the capitalist system that the United States has done so well by these last 220 years and replace it with something he calls the "Green Collar Economy" that pretty much has the government running everything. I don't want a guy like that advising any president.
Assuming the facts are true (and some undoubtedly are, as they appear in video clips available on YouTube in which you can see and hear Jones speak), then either the Obama administration did a really crappy job of vetting this guy before bringing him aboard, or they knew about all of this stuff and made a conscious decision that it didn't matter. Either way, in my view it doesn't reflect well on the Obama administration.
You're judged by the company you keep, Mr. President. Better keep that in mind.
(0) comments
Now Jones has issued one of those "politician special" non-apology apologies--you know, the kind where he says "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" without admitting doing anything wrong. He also says he does not now and never did agree with the truthers' claims. Query: why, then, did he sign the petition? Mr. Jones' office has issued a statement to the effect that he didn't review the document carefully before signing. I call bushwa--whether he read it or not, he certainly knew its tenor and purpose at the time. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I for one do not accept so-called "apologies" that are really insults in disguise; i.e., "I'm right and you're wrong but if you're too stupid to see that then I didn't mean to hurt your feelings while trying to educate you." I further believe that the statements Mr. Jones made before becoming a part of the Obama administration more truly demonstrate his real thinking than the measured, massaged and vetted comments that he makes now. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Jones is a racist, radical communist who wants to overturn the capitalist system that the United States has done so well by these last 220 years and replace it with something he calls the "Green Collar Economy" that pretty much has the government running everything. I don't want a guy like that advising any president.
Assuming the facts are true (and some undoubtedly are, as they appear in video clips available on YouTube in which you can see and hear Jones speak), then either the Obama administration did a really crappy job of vetting this guy before bringing him aboard, or they knew about all of this stuff and made a conscious decision that it didn't matter. Either way, in my view it doesn't reflect well on the Obama administration.
You're judged by the company you keep, Mr. President. Better keep that in mind.
Labels: Czars, Economy, Environmentalism, Obama, politics, weasel words
