The Word

A “What you are up against” Update:

Woodhouse says he never remembers anyone going after Bush during his presidency the way Republicans are attacking Obama. Woodhouse said Democrats never equated Bush to a terrorist or as someone who had committed manslaughter.

“Many Republicans will say didn’t democrats attack George Bush in exactly the same way. what’s your response to that?,” Bashir asked Woodhouse.

“I don’t remember anything that equates from official Democratic Party. I mean, of course there are interest groups and people have their say, but I don’t remember anything coming from Democratic Party about George W. Bush being equated to a terrorist or George W. Bush being equated to somebody who has been accused of manslaughter. I don’t remember anybody questioning some of the things about George W. Bush that have been questioned about the president. I don’t remember an opposing Governor wagging his or her finger in president George W. Bush’s face,” Woodhouse said.
“The truth is, is that the Republican Party starts from a core of extreme positions and it seems that leads to extreme rhetoric when things don’t work out for them with the voters,” he said.

Search for Bush is A Chimp, a Moron, Stupid, or Hitler.

The cognitive dissonance or just plain dishonesty is what you are up against you.

************

For the first time, the Justice Department has made public a series of sensitive messages that passed to the highest levels of the agency within hours of an ambush  that killed a U.S. border patrol agent along the Southwest border in  December 2010, igniting a national scandal over a gun trafficking  investigation gone wrong.

Justice officials sent the documents to Congress late Friday evening, only a few days before Attorney General Eric Holder is set to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The  email messages show the former top federal prosecutor in Arizona,  Dennis Burke, notifying an aide to Holder via email on Dec. 15, 2010 (Holder testified in May 2011- he heard about in the “last few weeks”) that agent Brian Terry had been wounded and died. “Tragic,” responds the  aide, Monty Wilkinson. “I’ve alerted the AG, the acting Deputy Attorney  General…”

Only a few minutes later,  Wilkinson emailed again, saying, “Please provide any additional details  as they become available to you.”

An email from one official, whose name has been redacted from the  document, to now-former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reads: On  December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was  shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north  of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word]  unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being  shot. At this time, the agent is being transported to an area where he  can be air lifted to an emergency medical center.

Burke then delivered another piece of bad news: “The guns found in the desert near the murder [sic] … officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store.”

That investigation, dubbed Fast and Furious,  was supposed to follow U.S. weapons into the hands of kingpins in the  violent Sinaloa Mexico drug cartel, building a big case against the  gangs. Instead, it cost Burke his job, got the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reassigned, and has prompted multiple federal probes by Congress and the department’s own inspector general.

The Justice Department also sent a letter to lawmakers  Friday night outlining several changes they had made within their own  ranks and at the ATF: from requiring additional oversight in cases that  involve wiretaps and confidential informants to extra procedures at the  ATF for putting weapons purchases under surveillance to a realignment at  the U.S. Attorney’s office in Phoenix and the ATF itself.

The  new documents are certain to stoke the fires among congressional  Republicans, who have questioned what the attorney general knew about  the botched investigation and asked why the chief of the Justice  Department’s criminal division, Lanny Breuer, didn’t do more when he found out about other questionable tactics used by ATF in gun trafficking probes in the Bush administration.

In  a meeting with Mexican government officials in February 2011, for  instance, Breuer “suggested allowing straw purchasers cross into Mexico  so [police] can arrest and [prosecutors] can convict. Such coordinated  activities between the US and Mexico may send a strong message to arms  traffickers.”

A Justice official,  speaking on background, said Breuer’s proposal involved coordination  between the governments and didn’t contemplate agents losing track of  guns, as happened in the Fast and Furious debacle.

A  few days after the meeting between Breuer and Mexican authorities, the  department’s attache to Mexico raised this issue, according to an email:  “there is an inherent risk in allowing weapons to pass from the U.S. to  Mexico. The possibility of the [government of Mexico] not seizing the  weapons, and the weapons being used to commit a crime in Mexico.”

The  attorney general, in testimony to the House and Senate last year, said  he feared the Justice Department could be living with the consequences  of more than 1,000 guns connected to Fast and Furious that remain  unaccounted for years to come.

So The AG is lying again…Will anyone care? Probably Not.

“Obviously I think if the question is referring to things like Fast and Furious, I think everyone has acknowledged that mistakes, serious mistakes, were made there,” Napolitano replied, “The key question [is] to make sure that those mistakes, from my standpoint, are never again repeated.”

Mistakes? To suggest that Fast and Furious was not a program that was intentionally designed to funnel firearms to straw purchasers is disingenuous and to use the mild word “mistake” to color over a program that led to the death of a U.S. border patrol agent and more than 200 Mexicans is irresponsible. While it’s encouraging that Napolitano wants to ensure that administration officials never design such a foolish and lethal program again, her language seems too calculated to also create the impression that administration officials have no possible culpability here. In her mind, it was all just a series of “mistakes” from which to learn and move forward — but, again, even if the operation was intended to lead to a different ending — to the prosecution of the biggest fish within Mexican drug cartels — the sale of the weapons to straw purchasers in the first place was not a mistake. It was that tactic that was and is and will continue to be controversial — and Napolitano’s comments should reflect that the tactic should never have been used in the first place.

While the congressional investigation into Fast and Furious is far from over and while those of us who are strongly suspicious of DOJ higher-ups have to fight not to ascribe to them the worst of ulterior motives until those motives are established by the evidence, administration officials should at the very least express a stronger sense of the inexcusable facts of Fast and Furious.

**********

A $500 million green jobs program at the Department of Labor has so far provided only 15 percent of current participants with jobs, leading the agency’s inspector general to recommend that the bulk of the money be returned to the Treasury.

The program, which was funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aims to find employment for almost 80,000 people by providing grants for labor exchange and job training projects. With those grants expiring over the next 15 months, IG officials concluded that the program would fail to come close to that target.

So how many workers has this program actually placed?  As of June 30th … 8,035, or about a tenth of what was projected after burning through 40% of the funding.  That actually comes to a surprisingly modest $25,000 per job placement.  However, that total includes temp jobs; only 1,336 people found jobs lasting longer than 6 months.

In other words, this is just like Obamanomics in general.  It provides a short-term gimmicky gain at incredible expense that is designed to do nothing except give politicians a headline and a photo op.  It would be cheaper in the long run to buy politicians a camera and get them a blog.

 Not Mine! 🙂
As always, it’s all flash and cash and no actual solutions. It just looks good for the media and the talking points but the reality is, it’s crap on a stick.
During his Google+ hangout Pres. Obama tells a woman that her husband  shouldn’t be unemployed from the growth he has seen in the economy.  Obama said he finds it “interesting” because he is getting “the word”  that someone in her husband’s job field “should be able to find  something right away.”Obama offered to do something if she would just send him her husband’s resume.

The woman wants to know why Obama is extending visas for foreigners when there is tons of demand for American jobs by Americans.

(and ignoring the border)

President Obama takes a question from an “Occupy” protester during his Google+ Hangout web event.“Mr. President, I voted for you. I’m paying my taxes, I’m unemployed  five years now and I need help. I’m 52, what am I going to do? How will I  recover from this? Do you have a plan for me?,” the Occupy protester  ask.

Obama told her his solution is to “grow the economy.”

Maybe she should give him $38,500 for his autograph like the Wall Streeters. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

The Fairness Doctrine 2012

So if wealth is not a worldwide round-robin of purse-snatching, and if the thing that makes you rich doesn’t make me poor, why should we care about fairness at all? We shouldn’t.

Fairness is a good thing in marriage and at the day-care center.  It’s a nice little domestic virtue. But a liking for fairness is not that noble a sentiment.  Fairness doesn’t rank with charity, love, duty, or self-sacrifice.  And there’s always a tinge of self-seeking in making sure that things are fair.  Don’t you go trying to get one up on me. (PJ O’Rourke)

One of the most interesting aspects of this debate is that relatively few commentators tie the Obama “fairness” argument to the political tactics of collectivist ideologues.  Those tactics were once very well known: take a word or expression that people think we all know the meaning of – justice, democracy, peace, fairness – and appropriate it for militant statist schemes that actually portend something very different.  With this kind of political bait-and-switch fraud, you can gain control over the people that they had no idea they were ceding.  This has been the method of socialists for decades.

In the current case, for example, the Obama administration wants us to focus on “taxes” as we discuss disparities between rich and poor, and to predicate the whole debate on “fairness.”  We think we know what is meant by these terms.

But given the background and the trend of sentiments expressed by Obama and those in his administration, it is entirely reasonable to assess that what is important to them is not “taxes,” specifically, but “disparities between rich and poor,” and the association of “fairness” with giving the central government a charter to intervene in those disparities.  Taxes are a specific case on which to establish a general principle: that cultivating “fairness” requires government intervention.

Is fairness properly cultivated as a condition or an attitude?  The adult world once had a ready answer to that question.  Children were taught that we should take care to be fair with others (the attitude), but that life – in terms of events, outcomes, and other people – wouldn’t necessarily be fair (the condition).

  But no matter how fair we seek to be, there will continue to be unfair outcomes, and many of them will be out of our control. (hot air)

“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”As usual, the president motivated the higher taxes with references to “fair play” and getting the wealthy to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

“Fairness” was the codeword of the State of the Union address, not the chronic problem of lingering high unemployment, something the president never even mentioned. (Fox)

Envy. Jealousy. Covetness. Some of the 7 deadly sins are what Obama and The Democrats want in order to win.

So what is Fair?

Is it Fair That I don’t make Millions of dollars a year or a movie or TV Show?

Would it not be more “fair” to make it illegal to make over say: $200,000 a year.

The problem is that all those who aren’t making $200,000 a year, it’s not “fair” to them still.

So to be fair, EVERYONE would have to make $200,000 a year. Even the pimply 16 year old who just handed you your fries.

Thus Tom Cruise, movie star, and Tom Cruise the Fast Food kid would make the same amount.

Now that’s “fair” isn’t it? 🙂

So do you think this has any chance of working. Not in this universe!

So you’d have to lower the expectations.

Say dropping some zeroes. Say $20,000.

So do you think this has any chance of working. Not in this universe!

For exactly same reason but not because businesses couldn’t afford it. Because No one who was making more than that would do it.

But it would be equally “fair” now wouldn’t it.

And we’d all be EQUAL as well. How could that be wrong??

We all know why. But that’s why the Democrats don’t go any farther than the “eat the rich” strategy.

Is it fair that I don’t look like Hugh Jackman?

Fat People, Skinny People, “beautiful” people and “ugly” people.

Is it fair that I’m not as talented as say, Tom Brady?

Is it fair I never got to to Harvard, like Obama?

Was it fair that my sister got better grades than I did?

Well, the Democrats really don’t care. They just want to use the worst instincts of people to win. They want you to see the worst in other people too.

And the worse it gets the better they feel.

Worst is First.

It’s not fair.

If we let fairness in the door as a controlling quantity, human history suggests that we will never meet its rigorous standard.  Nothing can ever be “fair” enough, because there will always be someone who isn’t happy with the current conditions, and can point out an undeniable situational disparity of one kind or another.

The sensation of unfairness comes from deep within the human consciousness.  But it cannot be assuaged by any perfect reordering of material conditions.  Indeed, when material conditions are promptly reordered in response to our childhood complaints about unfairness, that only encourages us to base our happiness on specific material conditions – and complain more and more readily at the drop of a hat.  On the other hand, when we learn to deal with unfairness under the tutelage of good-hearted, fair-minded adults, what we come away appreciating is the trust and sense of safety their fair-mindedness engenders in us, even though things aren’t always fair.

Fairness cannot be enforced, nor unfairness requited, by the actions of the state.  Politics doesn’t lead us, through its inherent clash of competing biases, to a universal standard of fairness.  It merely enforces one set of policy ideas over another.  The tendency of all of us to treat each other unequally in one way or another (many of them utterly benign) is not itself a reason for government to intervene between us, but rather for government – which is just other people to whom we have given authority – to be limited in what it can do to us, period.(hot air)

But for the Democrats that doesn’t get them what they want.

Complete Control of Everyone and everything.

And “fairness” is the ticket.

Fear, Envy, Covetness.

They want you to want the government to screw the “unfair”. The problem is, that that is inherently unfair and based solely on their own political bias and control freakishness.

In requiring “fairness” you don’t get it.

In requiring “equality” you don’t get it.

And you lose Freedom in the process.

The Democrats don’t care about any of them. They just want you to want it bad enough to re-elect them so they can take it away from you because you asked for it.

And the Republicans are too busy with their circular firing squad of death to notice.

Meanwhile, you don’t have a job. Your prospect are crappy. And Unemployment that officially has been over 8% for 3 years in a row suddenly vanishes in a haze of resentment.

But as long as you feel it’s “fair” everything is just perfect.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

Oh No! Not again!

The London Daily Mail:

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

The Climategaters (from the same offices) were potentially wrong in their doomsday scenario and it’s actually we’re all going to freeze to death instead (just like the hysterics of the mid-70’s!!)

Gee, I guess what is old is new again, when your goal to begin with was to frighten people into doing what you want regardless of any facts. And when new ones come along and screw up your old facts you just roll with it and start it all over again.

Sounds like Obama doesn’t it?

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

The world average temperature from 1997 to 2012

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

World solar activity cycles from 1749 to 2040

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

Four hundred years of sunspot observations

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.

Yeah, people could figure out they are LYING up their asses and have been been for more than 40 years!

Mind you, the Mindless Zombie Hoard on the Left won’t even bat an eye. They don’t care.

Hot or Cold. It’s all Armageddon to them if you don’t do extactly what they want you to do and right bloody now!

Yes, Masser! Yes Masser!

That’s all they want.

Moments to Remember

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

This was the leader of the free world using the chamber of the House of Representatives to stage the beginning of his reelection campaign.

Barack Obama had an open microphone and time to kill at Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, a scenario only slightly less distressing than learning that a serial arsonist is on the loose. What resulted was grandiose even by the standards of this endlessly self-referential chief executive: 65 minutes of blather punctuated by 75 personal pronouns (yes, you read that right – the president referred to himself more than once per minute).

This was the leader of the free world using the chamber of the House of Representatives to stage the beginning of his reelection campaign. How did it play out? Well, let’s just say that the president has maintained his audacity even while the American people have lost their hope. Here are just a few of the more egregious examples…

1. “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse.  Some even said we should let it die.  With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.  In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility.  We got workers and automakers to settle their differences.  We got the industry to retool and restructure.  Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company.  Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories.  And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. We bet on American workers.  We bet on American ingenuity.  And tonight, the American auto industry is back.  What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.”

About that: (A) The credit for the auto industry bailout (misbegotten as it was) doesn’t belong to Obama. The process was announced by George W. Bush in December 2008, with the Obama Administration merely expanding upon it later. (B) Ford’s investments may be heartening, but they don’t have any business in this speech, as Ford was the only one of the big three automakers not to take a federal bailout (a fact the company touted in its television ads before the commercials were pulled after political pressure from the White House). (C) No prominent conservatives argued that “we should let [the auto industry] die.” Rather, they argued that a conventional bankruptcy restructuring, which would allow the companies to keep functioning without putting taxpayer money on the line, was a preferable alternative. (D) No one apart from this president sees Detroit – which had 11.2 percent unemployment in November – as a viable model for the national economy.

2. “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

Remind us to tell that to the 20,000 workers who would have been employed by the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline or the 230,000 who could find gainful employment, according to an IHS Global Insight study, if the administration allowed the permitting process for energy exploration in the Gulf Coast to keep pace with the region’s capacious resources.

3. “Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same.  It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.  No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.  An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.”

Unless, of course you’re a green energy firm, a labor union or General Electric – in which case the rules you play by will be mailed to you upon receipt of your campaign contributions.

4. “Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.  Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.  Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”

We’re only spending $1 trillion in this instance if you define “spending” as “failing to take from someone the money they’ve earned.” To understand how ludicrous this rationale is, consider the following: The same logic would lead you to conclude that we’re “spending” nearly $1 billion a year by failing to tax the American Cancer Society at a 100 percent rate. 

Also, this Warren Buffett nonsense has to stop. Buffett’s tax rates are lower than his secretary’s because he’s being taxed on capital gains: the profits he’s made from investments made with after-tax dollars. When Buffett originally made that money in the form of earned income, he paid a rate at least as high as his secretary (and probably higher, given the nature of the progressive income tax system). One simply cannot advocate for renewed economic growth in one breath and then decry the fact that there isn’t a higher tax on job-creating investment in the next. This shouldn’t be surprising coming from Obama, however. In a debate during the 2008 campaign, he said that he would favor raising the capital gains tax even if it resulted in a reduction in tax revenue – as a matter of “fairness.”

5. “I’m a Democrat.  But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed:  That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”

Given the president’s record, there are only two possible interpretations of this statement: (A) He’s lying. (B) He thinks we’re idiots.

There’s no doubt that – even by the president’s debased standards – this was a painful State of the Union. It did have one advantage over its predecessors, however. This one could be his last.

For the sake of the world, I hope so.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

A Scorpion for Breakfast

'Scorpions for Breakfast'

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062106392/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=janbre0c-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062106392

www.scorpionsforbreakfast.com.

Obama came here to tout his greatness. He got a Scorpion for Breakfast.

But the thing about scorpions, they don’t get riled unless you rile them.

I haven’t always been the biggest fan of our Governor (But compared to our last one- Big Sis herself Janet -yikes what a difference) but from everything I have seen Obama picked this fight.

Interview from just after it happened: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html?article=9666508

http://townhall.com/video/obama-vs.-brewer

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ): Well, I was there to greet him. I was the first in line as he came off the plane. He came down, he said ‘Hello Jan.’ I told him, ‘Mr. President, welcome to Arizona and we kept the sun up for you.’ And it was a beautiful day in Arizona. And I said, ‘We appreciate you being here and the bottom line is I’d like the opportunity to sit down to talk to him about the great Arizona comeback and the things that we have done here and job growth, etc. etc.

I explained to him how we have turned Arizona around and that we both love our country. I know that he loves our country, I love our country. And he brought up my book. And he was a little tense.

He said that he had read the excerpt and he didn’t think that I was very cordial. And I said, ‘Well, we agreed on that day to disagree.’ And he was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense, to say the least. And I don’t remember — I was trying to be calm. You know, that picture (Brewer pointing her finger at Obama) is very interesting but I don’t remember actually doing that. And he moved on down the line.

MESA, Ariz. (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer says President Barack Obama discussed her book with her and that he didn’t give it a good review.

Brewer was at the Mesa airport Wednesday, among several state and local officials greeting Obama after he got off Air Force One.

Brewer was observed giving Obama an envelope and speaking with the president for a few minutes.

A news reporter said in a White House press pool report that Brewer later said Obama told her he didn’t feel her book treated him cordially.

She says she invited Obama to go to the U.S.-Mexico border with her and to also discuss Arizona’s economic comeback.

He went to the Intel planet in Chandler to tout his greatness. She went back to the Capital.

  • Obama Gov Brewer.jpg

Typical.

Isn’t it interesting how the AP video switch to a view where the whole exchange is obscured just before it happens?

“He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.”

On the letter, she said it was personal letter asking him to sit down with her to discuss the “Arizona comeback.”

She said she “reiterated an invitation that I’ve extended to him before with regards to coming to arizona and going to the border with me.” She said she would take him to lunch.

“We’ve had a remarkable comeback here and I want to share that with him.”

She said the president brought up the book.

“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.”

It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other.

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.

Shortly after, Obama’s press aides released a statement claiming Obama said she “inaccurately described the meeting.” The three-sentence statement ended curtly, saying that “the President looks forward to continuing taking steps to help Arizona’s economy grow.”

“He wants to talk about comprehensive immigration reform,” she said, but “we need to talk about the problems that Arizona is facing, and in that context, the problems going on in Mexico… [but] he just doesn’t get it.”

Comprehensive immigration reform is a common Washington, D.C. euphemism for giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

In the book, she described Obama as patronizing during their 2010 meeting when she asked for his help in curbing illegal immigration. His reaction, she wrote, “was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee.”

Obama’s curt treatment of Brewer came the day after he used his State of the Union speech to call for a reduction in partisan rancor.

Better government can’t “happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town.” he declared. “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.”

So another liberal call for “civility” last just hours.

Typical.

Obama 10/2011: “The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.

“If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. If you don’t like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you’re on your own,” he said. “That’s not the America I believe in. It’s not the America you believe in.”

But La Raza and the Liberal Left will love it anyhow. He stood up to the racist white bitch! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Michael Ramirez Cartoon
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

State of the Union

I enjoyed “Chopped” last night, amusingly it was a “Redemption” episode where they brought back contestants there previously chopped.

The winner, a guy who was previously homeless and has kicked and scratch and worked himself up to being a chef. He got beat one the first show. But now he was back to try again.

He fought hard and he won.

How the perfect anti-Obama. Redemption and Hard Work Rewarded. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Republican National Committee has compiled this video comparing lines President Obama used tonight in his State of the Union Address with lines he used in previous addresses before Congress:

Obama 2010

: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012

: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010

: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011

: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012

: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010

: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012

: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010

: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012

: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

The good news is that after a couple years these sorts of speeches begin to write themselves. (KFYI)

So I didn’t miss much apparently. 🙂

2009: “I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

So it’s 3 years later. Leave already… 🙂

But as we all know Liberals can say things like that but when it come to fruition they have forgotten they even said it and when you remind them they blow it off because they didn’t mean it then and they don’t mean it now.

And the new sound bites, lofty rhetoric, they don’t mean that either. Never did.

They just want you to buy it on the moment, then forget it, just like they do.

It’s not like they have principles or anything.

Thomas Sowell: This may be the golden age of presumptuous ignorance. The most recent demonstrations of that are the Occupy Wall Street mobs. It is doubtful how many of these semi-literate sloganizers could tell the difference between a stock and a bond.

Yet there they are, mouthing off about Wall Street on television, cheered on by politicians and the media. If this is not a golden age of presumptuous ignorance, perhaps it should be called a brass age.

No one has more brass than the President of the United States, though his brass may be more polished than that of the Occupy Wall Street mobs. When Barack Obama speaks loftily about “investing in the industries of the future,” does anyone ask: What in the world would qualify him to know what are the industries of the future?

Why would people who have spent their careers in politics know more about investing than people who have spent their careers as investors?

Presumptuous ignorance is not confined to politicians or rowdy political activists, by any means. From time to time, I get a huffy letter or e-mail from a reader who begins, “You obviously don’t know what you are talking about…”

The particular subject may be one on which my research assistants and I have amassed piles of research material and official statistics. It may even be a subject on which I have written a few books, but somehow the presumptuously ignorant just know that I didn’t really study that issue, because my conclusions don’t agree with theirs or with what they have heard.

At one time I was foolish enough to try to reason with such people. But one of the best New Year’s resolutions I ever made, some years ago, was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. It has been good for my blood pressure and probably for my health in general.

A recent column that mentioned the “indirect subsidies” from the government to the Postal Service brought the presumptuously ignorant out in force, fighting mad.

Because the government does not directly subsidize the current operating expenses of the Postal Service, that is supposed to show that the Postal Service pays its own way and costs the taxpayers nothing.

Politicians may be crooks but they are not fools. Easily observed direct subsidies can create a political problem. Far better to set up an arrangement that will allow government-sponsored enterprises — whether the Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Tennessee Valley Authority — to operate in such a way that they can claim to be self-supporting and not costing the taxpayers anything, no matter how much indirect subsidy they get.

As just one example, the Postal Service has a multi-billion dollar line of credit at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Hey, we could all use a few billions, every now and then, to get us over the rough spots. But we are not the Postal Service.

Theoretically, the Postal Service is going to pay it all back some day, and that theoretical possibility keeps it from being called a direct subsidy. The Postal Service is also exempt from paying taxes, among other exemptions it has from costs that other businesses have to pay.

Exemption from taxes, and from other requirements that apply to other businesses, are also not called subsidies. For people who mistake words for realities, that is enough for them to buy the political line — and to get huffy with those who don’t.

Loan guarantees are a favorite form of hidden subsidies for all sorts of special interests. At a given point in time, it can be said that these guarantees cost the taxpayers nothing. But when they suddenly do cost something — as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — they can cost billions.

One of the reasons for so much presumptuous ignorance flourishing in our time may be the emphasis on “self-esteem” in our schools and colleges. Children not yet a decade old have been encouraged, or even required, to write letters to public figures, sounding off on issues ranging from taxes to nuclear missiles.

Our schools begin promoting presumptuous ignorance early on. It is apparently one of the few things they teach well. The end result is people without much knowledge, but with a lot of brass.

Bravo!

Now does that sound like Liberalism today and Obama in particular… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Larry Wright