Osama bin Laden is dead. God bless America and our fantastic fighting men and women! According to reports, a Navy SEAL team got him (GO NAVY!!), one of his sons, and Osama's youngest wife who, in the tradition of cowardly terrorists everywhere, was used as a human shield.
Interestingly, bin Laden was found at a massive fortress deep in Pakistan. Apparently, he was in a million dollar complex complete with 18 foot tall, barbed-wire topped walls in Abbottabad, Pakistan. If the Pakistani government didn't know he was there, I'll eat my hat, since Abbottabad is an affluent suburb about 35 miles outside of Pakistan's capitol of Islamabad. On top of that, the compound was a few hundred yards from a Pakistani military training center. Go figure. Some of the questions we will be demanding answers to in the coming days will certainly include a few on who in the Pakistani government knew what and when.
There were parties going on last night in front of the White House, in Times Square, and at the campuses of both West Point and Annapolis. One would imagine the Annapolis celebration will be going on for quite a while - the Navy certainly has a prize scalp to bolster morale and they will surely be revelling in it.
Reports are still conflicting, but what seems to be coming clear is that this victory is going to bring up some hard truths that some on the left might not like. Most importantly, much of the intelligence that got us this victory started out, four years ago, as information received from Gitmo detainees at the hands of interrogators. It will be interesting to see how that narrative develops in the coming weeks. Hopefully those practices will be seen as the necessary evil that they are now that they have been instrumental in bringing Public Enemy #1 to justice.
This victory has many fathers - most notably the CIA and SEAL Team Six, who developed the intel and kept their eyes on the prize. The lion's share of credit goes to them, along with the thanks of a grateful nation. Credit should also be given to both the Obama administration for making the call to go into Pakistan (quite a risky call, to be sure - kudos, Mr. President) and the Bush administration for extracting the initial information four years ago that put us on the path to Abbottabad in the first place.
The joyous crowds filling the streets of NYC and Washington DC last night were just the beginning. As people wake up to the news today, there are sure to be many more celebrations across the country. This event has come at a time when we desperately needed unity. The divisiveness of the political scene and the economic fears gripping the nation will be put aside, at least for today, so that we can celebrate this major victory and remember that we're all in it together. This surge of pride in America is a welcome thing, and something that hopefully will not fade away any time soon.
In five months, we will be observing the 10th anniversary of September 11th. While the observances will be solemn, they will have a new undercurrent this year. We the people have gotten a certain measure of closure with the death of bin Laden. Will it take away the pain inflicted on 9/11? No, but it sure does go far towards banishing that helpless feeling many Americans have felt for the past nine years. Perhaps now the real healing can begin.
This isn't the end of this conflict by any means, but this is a watershed moment for sure. There will be much to discuss in the coming weeks as more information comes out. There will surely be controversy over bin Laden's burial at sea - a necessary thing, in my opinion, which will keep his tomb from becoming a pilgrimage site for future jihadis - and the role Pakistani officials may have played in keeping his whereabouts secret, but for now, let's just savor the flavor of sweet, sweet victory. Democrats, independents and republicans will put aside their differences today and celebrate this great triumph against an evil man.
God bless America!
UPDATE: HotAir has a great roundup of last night's celebrations.
UPDATE II: Initial reports had a police station near the OBL compound; turns out it is the Pakistani version of West Point instead. I've changed it in the post.
UPDATE III: Questions already arising from the burial at sea, as expected. Imams are claiming it wasn't a sufficient burial, others are saying the body should have been brought back here. Why? To display it like a trophy - perhaps mount his head on a spike atop the ever-growing Freedom Tower? Burial at sea ensures no shrine to the martyr's tomb. As it is, one will most likely crop up in Abbottabad. They should release the pictures, though, for sure - gore and all. The wound can be blurred to make it more palatable. DNA tests might prove there's a 99.9% chance it's him, but I, for one, want to see him with my own eyes. And from the spontaneous outbursts of joyful patriotism breaking out all over the country, I don't think I'm alone.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
TEN YEARS, ZERO JUSTICE
Today is the tenth anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole. Seventeen brave sailors died that day, and thirty-nine more were wounded. Less than a year later, September 11th would overshadow all previous attacks, making them seem insignificant by comparison. Many people see that as the beginning of the war on terror - a carefully planned act of war on innocent civilians. Many people became aware for the first time that there were factions who hated us and wanted to kill as many of us as possible.
In reality, the 1990's were full of terrorist attacks, many of which were shrugged off by the Clinton administration. Because they occurred in foreign lands, and the primary victims were military personnel, the American people shrugged them off, too. But it was a planned campaign, an incessant poking of the bear that would escalate with each lack of response.
Which brings us to the USS Cole bombing. It's hard to forget the images of the crippled ship coming home; the huge 60' by 40' hole torn into her side was a disturbing reminder that even we, the strongest country in the world, could be brought low. The response to this deadly attack on our brave men and women in uniform? Nothing so far. Ten years, and nothing has been done to bring the mastermind of the bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, to justice.
Clinton vowed retribution:
Eh, not so much. But what else was he supposed to say less than a month out from a major election cycle? The words and actions of politicians seldome sync. Nashiri is the only person we are holding for the Cole bombing (some planners eventually gave their sick and twisted all for Allah on 9/11), but the attack was credited to Osama Bin Laden (who actually read poetry about the bombing) and al Qaeda a mere two weeks after the event.
The Cole bombing was central to the intel about potential future strikes by al Qaeda - intel that was shrugged off by the incoming Bush administration. Less than a year later, that intel would prove true and everyone's attention would be focused on al Qaeda as they tried to come to grips with the events of 9/11. At least the Bush administration managed to capture Nashiri and place him in Gitmo in 2006, but nothing has been done since.
In early February of 2009, President Obama actually withdrew charges against Nashiri. The reason for the withdrawal was so the DoJ could reveiw handling of high value prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees. The DoJ recently filed a motion saying there were no immediate plans to file new charges - a motion that was met with dismay and disbelief by the victims and families.
And so another year has passed without justice for the Cole victims and survivors. That makes three presidents now who have dropped the ball.
This unwillingness to prosecute war criminals made the enemy think we were weak. Each incident was an escalation. When even the Cole didn't register, the plans for 9/11, which was already deep in the planning and preparation stages, went into high gear. They thought they could attack with impunity and expect little response - and why would they not?
Would retaliation for the Cole attack have averted 9/11? Who knows? On the one hand, al Qaeda might have been disrupted and funding siezed, which could have stopped the attacks. On the other, strikes on al Qaeda might have been a catalyst in and of itself, triggering the attacks anyway. Either way, the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole remain unpunished, and wondering what might have been takes time away from dealing with what really has occurred. Which leaves unanswered the burning question of the day -
When will there be justice for the Cole?
In reality, the 1990's were full of terrorist attacks, many of which were shrugged off by the Clinton administration. Because they occurred in foreign lands, and the primary victims were military personnel, the American people shrugged them off, too. But it was a planned campaign, an incessant poking of the bear that would escalate with each lack of response.
Which brings us to the USS Cole bombing. It's hard to forget the images of the crippled ship coming home; the huge 60' by 40' hole torn into her side was a disturbing reminder that even we, the strongest country in the world, could be brought low. The response to this deadly attack on our brave men and women in uniform? Nothing so far. Ten years, and nothing has been done to bring the mastermind of the bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, to justice.
Clinton vowed retribution:
“You will not find a safe harbor,” he proclaimed. “We will find you and justice will prevail.”
Eh, not so much. But what else was he supposed to say less than a month out from a major election cycle? The words and actions of politicians seldome sync. Nashiri is the only person we are holding for the Cole bombing (some planners eventually gave their sick and twisted all for Allah on 9/11), but the attack was credited to Osama Bin Laden (who actually read poetry about the bombing) and al Qaeda a mere two weeks after the event.
The Cole bombing was central to the intel about potential future strikes by al Qaeda - intel that was shrugged off by the incoming Bush administration. Less than a year later, that intel would prove true and everyone's attention would be focused on al Qaeda as they tried to come to grips with the events of 9/11. At least the Bush administration managed to capture Nashiri and place him in Gitmo in 2006, but nothing has been done since.
In early February of 2009, President Obama actually withdrew charges against Nashiri. The reason for the withdrawal was so the DoJ could reveiw handling of high value prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees. The DoJ recently filed a motion saying there were no immediate plans to file new charges - a motion that was met with dismay and disbelief by the victims and families.
And so another year has passed without justice for the Cole victims and survivors. That makes three presidents now who have dropped the ball.
This unwillingness to prosecute war criminals made the enemy think we were weak. Each incident was an escalation. When even the Cole didn't register, the plans for 9/11, which was already deep in the planning and preparation stages, went into high gear. They thought they could attack with impunity and expect little response - and why would they not?
Would retaliation for the Cole attack have averted 9/11? Who knows? On the one hand, al Qaeda might have been disrupted and funding siezed, which could have stopped the attacks. On the other, strikes on al Qaeda might have been a catalyst in and of itself, triggering the attacks anyway. Either way, the perpetrators of the attack on the USS Cole remain unpunished, and wondering what might have been takes time away from dealing with what really has occurred. Which leaves unanswered the burning question of the day -
When will there be justice for the Cole?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
THE ISSUE'S NOT THE ISSUE
Chris Horner, author of "Power Grab" was on Hannity tonight. In his interview, he used, over and over, the phrase "The issue's not the issue". This is the mainstay liberal/progressive tactic to a T, and he deserves a hearty thank you for tagging it as such. It's quick, concise, easy to remember and right on the mark. A perfect foil for the coming campaign clashes.
In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda. On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that?
But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end. For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it. As Horner says, it's all about power and control. The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue". It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not. The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.
This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back. Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.
The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far. The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet. That is just the bill of goods we were sold. That bill was all about consolidation of power. It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power. That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.
The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us. It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health. If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.
Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector. Period.
The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush. I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time. Suggestions are appreciated.
The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections. But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air. It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).
The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation. This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months. Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs. Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow. Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser. When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet. Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance". Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"
It's a brilliant strategy, really. When you have no answers, start asking the questions.
The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now. You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea partymember extremist out to slaughter some random government official(s). The secret is, though, that Alinsky was right. In Rule #7 he said that "a tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag". The rising opposition in the polls shows that the "issue's not the issue" tactic has become a drag. It's time to start calling them out on it.
The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion. It promises to be an interesting summer campaign. The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue.
It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.
In his book, he discusses the Obama administration's green agenda. On the face, the green agenda is hard to fight - after all, it's all about "saving the planet", and what kind of heartless, selfish person would you be if you wouldn't want to do that?
But if you dig deeper, as Mr. Horner did, you will find that it has, in reality, very little to do with saving the planet - that angle is used merely as a means to an end. For all the hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds that it will suck up and the unprecidented control over American citizens, there is little or no measurable good for the environment that will come of it. As Horner says, it's all about power and control. The green agenda is a perfect illustration of his quote, "the issue's not the issue". It is being sold as good for us, but in reality it is not. The issue isn't saving the earth, the issue is grasping more power into the ever-expanding federal government.
This phrase, "the issue's not the issue" is something that needs to be remembered and repeated so that all will know it, because within that phrase is the key to fighting back. Understanding your opponent's tactics is the first step in defeating them.
The issue not being the issue concept applies to every piece of legislation that has passed this Congress so far. The stimulus was not about helping the country get back on it's feet. That is just the bill of goods we were sold. That bill was all about consolidation of power. It was a big, wet, sloppy kiss to all of the special interests who helped put the democrats in power. That expensive thank you also acts as a promise of thank yous to come if the democrats stay in power, thus ensuring their legacy.
The health care bill was not about lowering costs, as was sold to us. It was about redistribution of wealth and control over the most important part of your life - your health. If they hold the key to your good health, you're more inclined to vote to keep them happy and in power, and redistribution buys a whole sector of voters.
Cap and trade isn't about the environment, it's about seizing wealth and controlling the energy sector. Period.
The coming election isn't about a referendum on the distinctly leftward tilt towards european socialism that we are currently pursuing - it's apparently about George W. Bush. I haven't quite figured out how yet, but give me time. Suggestions are appreciated.
The democrat's talking points these days are not just a reflection of their desperation, they are also a roadmap for the coming elections. But then, faced with polls like these and these and these, it's no wonder there is a distinct whiff of desperation in the air. It seems that their entire strategy for the 2010 election is "the issue's not the issue" (and blame Bush, of course).
The liberals are geniuses at directing a conversation. This is what they will attempt to do over the next few months. Instead of addressing the issues that are paramount to a majority of Americans, they will redirect the conversation to either other issues altogether or changing the issue to suit their needs. Thus the green agenda is not about power and control, it's about saving the planet somehow. Instead of being accused, they are going to attempt to be the accuser. When they are accused of grasping for power, they will accuse you of hating the planet. Health care doesn't lower costs translates to "you hate people and don't want them to have insurance". Concerns that there is a lot of taxation coming down the pike becomes "you're one of those fringe militia people, aren't you?"
It's a brilliant strategy, really. When you have no answers, start asking the questions.
The problem is that we have been subjected to this tactic for years now. You might say the country was battle weary, but that would only confirm you are a tea party
The tea partyers know the issues, often better than their representatives, and they are equally as tenacious in their pursuit of an answer as the liberals are in their attempts to avoid the discussion. It promises to be an interesting summer campaign. The big question will be whether the issue is debated, or the issue that isn't the issue.
It's time to take control of the debate and demand real answers to the real issues.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
BEWARE THE TRAP Updated
I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama. Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right. I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors.
This whole things smacks of a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration. The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise. If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan. Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats. Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.
It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it? Why bother with this meeting? This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.
Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk. Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass. This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.
This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.
Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing. They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist. They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration. They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats. They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people. They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening. So, please 'obstruct' away!
This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves.
Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey). The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings.
We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over. In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004. In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country. The result? A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush. But that wasn't enough. They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well. They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama. But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that. They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.
Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.
I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit. It's a trap, pure and simple. I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan. They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.
UPDATE: Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:
Amen, brother....
This whole things smacks of a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration. The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise. If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan. Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats. Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.
It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it? Why bother with this meeting? This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.
Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk. Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass. This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.
This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.
Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing. They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist. They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration. They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats. They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people. They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening. So, please 'obstruct' away!
This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves.
Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey). The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings.
We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over. In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004. In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country. The result? A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush. But that wasn't enough. They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well. They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama. But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that. They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.
Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.
I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit. It's a trap, pure and simple. I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan. They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.
UPDATE: Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:
“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”
But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.
Amen, brother....
Monday, November 23, 2009
THE FIVE REASONS
Pajamas Media's Victor David Hansen wrote a great essay that is just too good not to share. Please click the link and check out the whole article. This piece is about the five reasons people voted for Obama:
He then went on to discuss how those same factors that were so vital to getting Obama elected are now moot. In short:
So what does this all mean? How will the massive deception that was perpertated upon this country in 2008 effect future elections?
Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the “worst” (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obama’s youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obama’s centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.
He then went on to discuss how those same factors that were so vital to getting Obama elected are now moot. In short:
1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.
2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.
3) Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.
4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obama’s election. Now? A lot of independents, however, won’t seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obama’s supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.
5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.
So what does this all mean? How will the massive deception that was perpertated upon this country in 2008 effect future elections?
That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta— of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of life—is swelling up in the electorate. I haven’t seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.God willing.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
WHITE HOUSE FOR RENT
According to the Washington Times, the Obama administration has managed to make the White House into the worlds fanciest VFW hall. For a mere $30,400 private donation or $300,000 bundle, you, too, can have VIP access to the White House and senior White House officials.
The perks include:
The perks include:
- A birthday visit to the Oval Office
- A round of golf with Dear Leader
- Lavish receptions at the White House
- A game of bowling with the family at the White House alley
- A private screening of your favorite movie in the basement theater
The DNC has also availed themselves of the White House prestige by hosting fundraisers on the premises, much as peons like you and I might rent out a VFW hall. Well, except that when we host a party, we don't require our guests to pay thousands of dollars to attend, as a general rule.
George W. Bush held fundraisers at Camp David and his Crawford ranch, but drew the line at the White House. This is probably because of all the flack Bill Clinton got for selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom. It will be interesting to see if the Neo Pravda media pick this story up. Fox didn't break it, so there is a chance, at least.
Considering Clinton got a lot of grief for his sale of access to the White House, there is certainly precedence for going after Obama on this, but the odds are good he will get a pass on this, too.
For me the piece de resistance was the quote from the deputy White House communications director, Dan Pfieffer:
""This administration has across the board set the toughest ethics standards in history. As a result, we have reduced special-interest influence over the policymaking process to promote merits-based decision-making," he added."
I haven't laughed so hard in years!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
QUICKIES
First on the hit list today is Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS getting thrown out. It's nice to see that our court system still works. For those not familiar with the case, Rather reported in 2004 on a bogus story that slammed President Bush, via a series of fraudulent memos, as a slacker who avoided serving in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard. CBS fired four people - three executives and a producer, and Rather apologized on-air and left 60 Minutes in disgrace. He remained at CBS for a while, but was basically retained for appearance sake until his contract ran out. In 2007 he filed suit against CBS for $70 million, claiming he was a scapegoat for CBS, unaware the reports were false and the memos were fraudulent and that he didn't have the time to research them himself.
It later turns out that not only were the memos fake, but, in their attempt to paint Bush as a slacker trying to dodge military service, they neglected to mention that he actually volunteered to go to Vietnam, but was turned down for more experienced pilots.
Rather, a respected newsman, saw a story that would be damaging to Bush's re-election and ran with it. It has been shown that his producer knew the memos were fakes, but their desire to get Bush out of office was apparently stronger than their ethics. The courts got it right.
In other news, terror suspect Najibullah Zazi plead not guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Two things disturb me about this case. First, Zazi was a shuttle driver for Denver airport, and second, that he has three possible accomplices that are not yet in custody. At least the authorities have identified them, so hopefully it's just a matter of time before they are picked up. Hopefully they aren't working on a plan B in the meantime.
And, finally, it seems that the loonies have really come out of the woodwork since Obama was elected. It's a little creepy, really. There's the chanting children (one of many, really), as well as NEA's attempt at a nationwide propaganda campaign and countless other creepy things. I'm torn between calling it socialist propaganda and cult worship. Of course, it's not like they are mutually exclusive, so maybe it's a little bit of both.
But this is just a little too far into the cult range. It's a little hard to tell, but it sounds like the first few responses are 'Obama' and the last few are 'Oh God' or a mix of the two. Weird. I also have an issue with Martin Luther King Jr. being called a 'prophet'. Now, he was a truly great man who was horribly taken from us far too soon, but he was no prophet. He was a hero, he was a kind, peaceful leader of men, and he was an invaluable asset to our country, but prophet? I think even he, man of God that he was, would protest that.
Well, if we are going to be immersed in a cult of personality, lets at least have a groovy soundtrack!
It later turns out that not only were the memos fake, but, in their attempt to paint Bush as a slacker trying to dodge military service, they neglected to mention that he actually volunteered to go to Vietnam, but was turned down for more experienced pilots.
Rather, a respected newsman, saw a story that would be damaging to Bush's re-election and ran with it. It has been shown that his producer knew the memos were fakes, but their desire to get Bush out of office was apparently stronger than their ethics. The courts got it right.
In other news, terror suspect Najibullah Zazi plead not guilty to conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction. Two things disturb me about this case. First, Zazi was a shuttle driver for Denver airport, and second, that he has three possible accomplices that are not yet in custody. At least the authorities have identified them, so hopefully it's just a matter of time before they are picked up. Hopefully they aren't working on a plan B in the meantime.
And, finally, it seems that the loonies have really come out of the woodwork since Obama was elected. It's a little creepy, really. There's the chanting children (one of many, really), as well as NEA's attempt at a nationwide propaganda campaign and countless other creepy things. I'm torn between calling it socialist propaganda and cult worship. Of course, it's not like they are mutually exclusive, so maybe it's a little bit of both.
But this is just a little too far into the cult range. It's a little hard to tell, but it sounds like the first few responses are 'Obama' and the last few are 'Oh God' or a mix of the two. Weird. I also have an issue with Martin Luther King Jr. being called a 'prophet'. Now, he was a truly great man who was horribly taken from us far too soon, but he was no prophet. He was a hero, he was a kind, peaceful leader of men, and he was an invaluable asset to our country, but prophet? I think even he, man of God that he was, would protest that.
Well, if we are going to be immersed in a cult of personality, lets at least have a groovy soundtrack!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
