You are a….

Ed Driscoll:

sexism_everywhere_9-6-14

“Look, liberalism has a kind of Tourette’s Syndrome these days,” George Will told Chris Wallace on Fox New Sunday back in April. “It’s just constantly saying the word racism and racist. It’s an old saying in the law; if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table. This is pounding the table:”

There’s a kind of intellectual poverty now. Liberalism hasn’t had a new idea since the 1960s except ObamaCare and the country doesn’t like it. Foreign policy is a shambles from Russia to Iran to Syria to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the recovery is unprecedentedly bad. So what do you do? You say anyone criticizes us is a racist. It’s become a joke among young people. You go to a campus where this kind of political correctness reigns and some young person will say looks like it’s going to rain. The person looks and says, you’re a racist. I mean it’s so inappropriate. The constant implication of this is that I think it is becoming a national mirth.

However, the left (there’s nothing “liberal” or “Progressive” about 21st century Democrats) have recently begun to hyper-obsess over a new word and, if you’ll pardon the imagery, are inserting it everywhere:

  • Comic book characters? Sexist.
  • Videogames? Sexist.
  • Silicon Valley? Sexist.
  • Home-cooked meals? Sexist.
  • Men on college campuses? Sexist.
  • Skateboard parks? Sexist.

To borrow from the popular Internet meme featuring Buzz and Woody from Toy Story (which has to be sexist as well, right? Of course it is!) Sexism…Sexism Everywhere!

Back in May, in a post titled “Why Democrats Call Americans Racist,” I wrote:

As in the 2010 midterms, expect the madness from the left to ramp up exponentially between now and November. They’re just getting started.

(And then presumably some time between mid-November and the start of the new year, the left will begin declaring half of America sexist. Unexpectedly.)

The protests in Ferguson, ginned up with the help of outside marchers from across the country, and Al Sharpton, direct from the NBC-Comcast boardroom inside Rockefeller Plaza certainly fit in with the first half of that equation all-too-perfectly.

And with that bonfire having fizzled out, it can mean only one thing:

Democrats really are “Ready for Hillary.”

Assuming she wins, is the rest of America ready to be trapped in a 1972-era Mobius Loop in which everything bad in the world will be dubbed sexist for the next four to eight years?

(Which doesn’t mean that the left will cease dubbing everything racist as well, as well, of course.)

Defenders of any traditional way of life are always at a disadvantage in debate with radical intellectuals who, having built or borrowed some theoretical argument for revolution, scornfully dismiss the defense of tradition as mere sentimental prejudice in favor of the status quo. Hurling accusations of bigotry and ignorance at their antagonists, radicals insist that progress beckons us toward an enlightened future, if only we can overcome the irrational opposition of The Forces of Darkness who wish to keep society enslaved to the benighted past. You understand how radicalism appeals to certain personality types. Understanding these things, the defender of tradition realizes that what actually requires explantation is not how “the system” works in theory, but rather why certain people are so implacably hostile to a system that works in practice. If the system does not work perfectly, we can consider how best to improve it, but mild reform projects are not what radicals have in mind, and feminism has always been inherently radical.

Feminism’s war on human nature requires that young people, especially girls and young women, be bombarded with this kind of anti-male/anti-heterosexual propaganda, lest they grow up to live what normal people would consider happy, successful lives. Women’s Studies professors are not normal people, and if your children grow up to be miserable failures, well, so what? Professor Glenn Reynolds remarks:

I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves. (The Other McCain)

At least that way, we are all “equal” and everything is “fair”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Connections

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Barack Obama, knight of the peevish countenance, illustrated William F. Buckley’s axiom that liberals who celebrate tolerance of other views always seem amazed that there are other views.

America can be the society it was when it had a spring in its step, a society in which markets — the voluntary collaboration of creative individuals — allocate opportunity. Or America can remain today’s depressed and anxious society of unprecedented stagnation in the fourth year of a faux recovery — a bleak society in which government incompetently allocates resources in pursuit of its perishable certitudes and on behalf of the politically connected. (George Will)

Speaking of connections…

The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. Nothing to see here… 🙂
The Childish Attack
The endless array of childish attacks and ad hominems that Liberals can come up with is psychologically fascinating, if your into psychosis and pathological behavior.
“When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney,” Obama told Denver supporters. “The real Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy.”
And the Democrats were the ones complaining after the debate about respect. 🙂
Developing?

Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million.

At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden effort was hit with a similar scandal. At the time, the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors use “largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor’s identity.”

The Democrats cheating? Naw, never happens. <fake cough> Voter ID fraud…

We’ll see if this come to pass and if it does how fast the Ministry of Truth will try to nuke it and bury it.

Racist! Again…

Mitt Romney “slyly” proved he’s a racist last night while describing his tax plan. Did you notice? No? Anyone? Harper’s Magazine’s Kevin Baker embarrassed himself in accusing Romney of trying to lock down his allegedly-racist base during last night’s debate.

“[Obama]didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his ‘five boys’ used to tell,” Baker laments today. “How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base.”

Actually, the entire debate audience laughed at Romney’s clever, innocuous way of rebutting Obama’s attack. Here’s what Romney said to Obama, per the White House transcript:

I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals.  I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case.  Look, I’ve got five boys.  I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. (Laughter.)  But that is not the case, all right?  I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

Baker is tilting at windmills, at best. Why? “Maybe it helps their self-esteem to pretend that, instead of defending a failed presidency and a lousy economic recovery, they are living 50 years ago, standing alongside freedom riders and marchers in the segregated South,” The Washington Examiner speculated recently in response to liberal pundits endless ability to connect modern politics to slavery.

After all, if you disagree with Obama, you must be a racist! 🙂

George Will again…

Late in the debate, when Romney for a third time referred to ObamaCare’s creation of “an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of (medical) treatment you ought to have,” Obama said, “No, it isn’t.” Oh?

The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.

The Statist Course

Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.

These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”

By ObamaCare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.

Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.”

But unless and until the Supreme Court — an unreliable guardian — overturns it, IPAB is a harbinger of the “shock and awe statism” (Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’ phrase) that is liberalism’s prescription for curing the problems supposedly caused by insufficient statism.

Before Denver, Obama’s campaign was a protracted exercise in excuse abuse, and the promise that he will stay on the statist course he doggedly defends despite evidence of its futility. After Denver, Romney’s campaign should advertise that promise.

And beat him to political death with it.
FEAR IS HOPE!
And Change is Bad!
The new “Hope and Change” theme of the Obama Campaign.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Keep on Truckin’

À few Weeks before the Obama Administration starts letting Mexican cargo trucks travel deep into the U.S., the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that, in the last few years, trucks coming from Mexico had more than 1 million safety violations.

State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, told the El Paso Times that the number of violations for the trucks from Mexico is in line with U.S. industry standards. He also assured that the trucks undergo inspections in Mexico and the United States.

“They are either no worse than U.S. trucks or better in some cases,” he said.

No big deal. Nothing to see here! Typical liberal tactic to diminish things that make them look bad.

This is hardly earth-shattering news since Mexican trucks have long failed to meet U.S. safety standards. That’s why they aren’t allowed to travel freely throughout the country, but rather in restricted zones within 25 miles of the southern border. Even within their limited boundary, they have created a huge risk to Americans’ safety, according to the Transportation Department Inspector General.

Regardless, the Obama Administration carved out a deal to allow Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. highways as part of a 17-year-old international trade pact known as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In a few weeks Mexican trucks will be allowed to travel into the interior of the United States, even though it could endanger American lives.

Earlier this year the Obama Administration paid to upgrade outdated Mexican trucks  that hemorrhage illegal amounts of exhaust when they deliver merchandise near the border. Generous Uncle Sam stepped in for the sake of improving air quality on both sides of the border by replacing old mufflers on dozens of Mexican trucks at a cost of $1,600 each.

So we can pay to have unsafe and environmentally inferior trucks on our roads (talk about a carbon footprint! where are the environmentalist on this one? Silent…) and we can do as little as possible to have armed drug lords coming across our borders like they don’t exist and Illegal Aliens are just “migrants” they won’t prosecute even if they catch them but if you object you’re a “racist”. 🙂

And if you object to anything about Obama and the Democrats you’re an “extremist”. 🙂

And this won’t put more people at risk on the road and won’t cause a rise in insurance because of the risk. 🙂

“This president has blamed George W. Bush, the Japanese tsunami, the euro, Greece, the Arab Spring, the Republicans, the tea party and ultimately James Madison for giving us separation of powers for all his problems,” Will said on ABC’s “This Week.” ”And that does not project leadership.” (George Will)

A new Rassmussen Reports poll finds that 65% of likely voters trust their judgment on the economy over President Barack Obama’s.

ENVIRONMENTALIST CONTROL FREAK UPDATE

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – California lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban Styrofoam containers used for takeout meals.

The bill would prohibit restaurants, grocery stores and other vendors from dispensing food in expanded polystyrene containers, commonly known as Styrofoam, beginning in 2016. If signed into law, the measure would make California the first to institute a statewide ban on the containers.

Some restaurant owners are complain that could them thousands of dollars at a time when profit margins are already thin.

BJ’s Kountry Kitchen, in the heart of California’s farm country, uses about 26,000 of the 9-inch foam clamshells a year, mostly for takeout by the customers who come in for the restaurant’s popular breakfast omelets. Owner Gary Honeycutt says switching to biodegradable cartons would more than double his costs.

But it won’t cost any jobs! It will “feel” good though…

Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, put it best about the elitism of the environmental movement: “Our elites live in big cities and are far removed from the fields. Whether it’s … the head of the Sierra Club or the head of Greenpeace, they’ve never been hungry.”

Al Gore: “I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.”

Should we mention his Father was a segregationist and voted against the Civil Rights Act and Bull Connor was A DEMOCRAT? Or that Southern DEMOCRATS were the people most opposed to the Civil Rights Acts!??

You could add his father worked for Oil and Coal companies after he left Congress (some of his “rich”ness (he’s a multi-millionaire) comes from it–that and his “carbon trading” scam)

Or is that an “Inconvenient Truth” Al?  🙂

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

So Global Warming Skeptics are “racists”. 🙂

Isn’t everyone and everything that opposes the far left? 🙂

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added.

When Bogusky questioned the analogy, asking if the scientific reasoning behind climate change skeptics might throw a wrench into the good and evil comparison with racism, Gore did not back down.

“I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely,” Gore said.

“This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money,” Gore said.

Forgot ClimateGate already did we? Of course they have…and you are supposed to also.
When a farmer complained to Barack Obama two weeks ago at a townhall meeting about rumors of regulations that would force him and his colleagues to get a commercial driver’s license to operate his farm equipment, the President assured him that it was probably nothing. “Folks in Washington” like to get “ginned up” and shout “Look what’s coming down the pipe,” Obama explained, and offered this advice to the farmer: “Contact USDA.” “Talk to them directly. Find out what it is that you’re concerned about,” Obama told the man. “My suspicion is, a lot of times, they’re going to be able to answer your questions and it will turn out that some of your fears are unfounded.”

Call Uncle Sam. Sensible advice, but perhaps the president has forgotten just how difficult it can be for ordinary citizens to get answers from the government.

When this POLITICO reporter decided to take the president’s advice and call the USDA for an answer to the Atkinson town hall attendee’s question, I found myself in a bureaucratic equivalent of hot potato — getting bounced from the feds to Illinois state agriculture officials to the state farm bureau.

The advice took Politico’s MJ Lee on a two-day odyssey — and still ended up with no answer.  Instead of demonstrating how silly regulatory rumors are, the exercise proved that no one really knows what regulations we have, what has been proposed, and who’s responsible for them.  It turned into a great example of just how overregulated we are and how inefficient the government is at applying regulation.

Obama fancies himself a man of the people. Having heard the farmer’s complaint, why on earth couldn’t this alleged man of the people say to one of his staffers, “Okay, I want you to look into this, find the answer, tell me, and then I will call the farmer PERSONALLY and tell him what the policy is.” A politician can gain an awful lot of good will for things like that. (Hot Air)

But he’s never think of it. Government is great. Government is the solution to all things in life. 🙂

***********

Obama Clock — This app is a countdown to either Barack Obama’s second inauguration or his final days as President of the United States. In addition, the application will download and update the following important voter metrics:

Approval Rating
Public Debt
Unemployment Level
Gasoline Cost Per Gallon
Housing Price Index

*Note: To refresh your data, simply press Obama’s Trojan Tree Pin*

The app also allows you to connect with the Obama Clock <http://app2.it/topapp/445326700> Facebook Page, so you may stay up to date on the President and share with your friends.

Future enhancements to this application are already in the works. Please rate the Obama Clock <http://app2.it/topapp/445326700> based on its current features, with improvement suggestions for V2.0 and beyond! (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

I Have Some Questions

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

When someone on the nightly talk shows asked if Obama and Co had a plan on Libya my reaction was “No”.

They dithered and hemmed-and-hawed for a month, then when someone pointed out their was a slaughter going on and a cried for a humanitarian no-fly zone  and when they had the UN to behind behind then Obama and Co did the liberal thing, they jumped in to save the universe from itself not having a f*cking clue what the hell they are doing!

But it FELT GOOD!

And it was “multi-lateral”. It wasn’t “cowboy diplomacy”. It was politically safe.

So they thought. If they were actually thinking about it rather than letting their Liberal Knee Jerk hit them in the head again that is.

We are saving civilians and the rebels from Moammar!

Obama, mar 11, 2011: “I believe that Gadhafi’s on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now,” the president said. “We are going to be in contact with the opposition as well as in consultation with the international community to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.”

Now: The White House is shifting toward the more aggressive goal in Libya of ousting President Moammar Gadhafi and “installing a democratic system,” actions that fall outside the United Nations Security Council resolution under which an international coalition is now acting…(Washington Examiner)

But we aren’t trying to “get” him!

Though how you protect the people from him without “getting” him is a question no Liberal wants to answer. And this whole “install a democratic system” is not “nation building”, after all, and how do you do this without “getting” the dictator? Or know who the “rebels” are to being with??

Do they have a f*cking clue??

Good Intentions (like ObamaCare, Global Warming, The EPA, Salt, fat, food, et al) have to account for something.

So when are going to invade Zimbabwe? Bahrain?Iran?Somalia (again)?Yemen??

The Road to Hell is paved with Liberals.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px
“Do you think this was the right thing to do?” ABC’s Christian Amanpour asked Will. 

“I do not,” Will said. “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”

“There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done,” Will countered. “If we are to protect people under assault, then where people are under assault in Bahrain, we’re logically committed to help them. We’re inciting them to rise up in expectation.”

“The mission creep here began, Paul, before the mission began,” he told Wolfowitz. “Because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone. That will not affect the end, which is obviously regime change.”

And do we even know who the hell we are backing??

No.

Liberals love to site, snidely, the “enemy of my enemy” strategy in the 1980’s and 1990 in places like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.

Aren’t we doing it again?

Liberals don’t care.

It “feels good” and you get snide remarks like “well, would you have them get slaughtered then??!!”.

That’s the “when did you stop beating you wife” logic fallacy.

But because it’s liberals saying it, it’s ok.:)  At least they think so.

They are so vastly superior, after all.

It’s not like they are George W. Bush!!  The Great Satan!

If A Republican, let alone GWB had done this without consultation of Congress the Impeach Bush crowd would have gone into Orbit.

But this our “first black president”, The Messiah, the Liberal Democrat, so cut him so slack jack. 😦

And the Mainstream Media is doing yoga bends to accommodate it.

But there are still questions: What is the precise goal of the mission? How long will it take and how much will it cost? What are the vital U.S. national security interests? What is the Exit Strategy?

Curiously, these are the questions the Democrats and the Mainstream Media beat Bush over the head with for 5 years.

Bet they will back contorting for the President within days.

2009GeorgeWillsig_135px

The missile strikes that inaugurated America’s latest attempt at regime change were launched 29 days before the 50th anniversary of another such — the Bay of Pigs of April 17, 1961. Then the hubris of American planners was proportional to their ignorance of everything relevant, from Cuban sentiment to Cuba’s geography. The fiasco was a singularly feckless investment of American power.

Does practice make perfect? In today’s episode, America has intervened in a civil war in a tribal society, the dynamics of which America does not understand. And America is supporting one faction, the nature of which it does not know. “We are standing with the people of Libya,” says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, evidently confident that “the” people are a harmonious unit. Many in the media call Moammar Gadhafi’s opponents “freedom fighters,” and perhaps they are, but no one calling them that really knows how the insurgents regard one another, or understand freedom, or if freedom, however understood, is their priority.

But, then, knowing is rarely required in the regime-change business. The Weekly Standard, a magazine for regime-change enthusiasts, serenely says: “The Libyan state is a one-man operation. Eliminate that man and the whole edifice may come tumbling down.” And then good things must sprout? The late Donald Westlake gave one of his comic novels the mordant title “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” People who do not find that darkly funny should not make foreign policy.

In Libya, mission creep began before the mission did. A no-fly zone would not accomplish what Barack Obama calls “a well-defined goal,” the “protection of civilians.” So the no-fly zone immediately became protection for aircraft conducting combat operations against Gadhafi’s ground forces.

America’s war aim is inseparable from — indeed, obviously is — destruction of that regime. So our purpose is to create a political vacuum, into which we hope — this is the “audacity of hope” as foreign policy — good things will spontaneously flow. But if Gadhafi cannot be beaten by the rebels, are we prepared to supply their military deficiencies? And if the decapitation of his regime produces what the removal of Saddam Hussein did — bloody chaos — what then are our responsibilities regarding the tribal vendettas we may have unleashed? How long are we prepared to police the partitioning of Libya?

Explaining his decision to wage war, Obama said Gadhafi has “lost the confidence of his own people and the legitimacy to lead.” Such meretricious boilerplate seems designed to anesthetize thought. When did Gadhafi lose his people’s confidence? When did he have legitimacy? American doctrine — check the Declaration of Independence — is that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So there are always many illegitimate governments. When is it America’s duty to scrub away these blemishes on the planet? Is there a limiting principle of humanitarian interventionism? If so, would Obama take a stab at stating it?

Congress’ power to declare war resembles a muscle that has atrophied from long abstention from proper exercise. This power was last exercised on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary), almost 69 years, and many wars, ago. It thus may seem quaint, and certainly is quixotic, for Indiana’s Richard Lugar — ranking Republican on, and former chairman of, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — to say, correctly, that Congress should debate and vote on this.

There are those who think that if the United Nations gives the United States permission to wage war, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Let us find out who in Congress supports this proposition, which should be resoundingly refuted, particularly by Republicans currently insisting that government, and especially the executive, should be on a short constitutional leash. If all Republican presidential aspirants are supine in the face of unfettered presidential war-making and humanitarian interventionism, the Republican field is radically insufficient.

On Dec. 29, 1962, in Miami’s Orange Bowl, President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the Bay of Pigs invasion, addressed a rally of survivors and supporters of that exercise in regime change. Presented with the invasion brigade’s flag, Kennedy vowed, “I can assure you that this flag will be returned to this brigade in a free Havana.” Eleven months later, on Nov. 2, 1963, his administration was complicit in another attempt at violent regime change — the coup against, and murder of, South Vietnam’s President Ngo Dinh Diem. The Saigon regime was indeed changed, so perhaps this episode counts as a success, even if Saigon is now Ho Chi Minh City.

CBS News: The leader of al-Qaida’s North Africa branch has urged Libyan rebels not to trust America and the U.S. role in the international coalition bombing Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.

Abdelmalek Droukdel of Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb claims the same America now attacking Gadhafi turned a “blind eye” in the past on his crimes against Libyans.

Droukdel, also known as Abu Musab Abdul-Wadud, says America got Gadhafi to give up weapons of mass destruction and Libyan oil so he could stay in power. The statement was posted Monday on a militant website.

It says “winds of liberation have started blowing in Libya” and urges Tunisians, Egyptians and Algerians to help their Libyan brethren fight Gadhafi.

Al-Qaida has lobbied for Gadhafi’s overthrown and the establishment of Islamic rule in Libya.

So who is it that we are protecting? And what guarantee that this is not the Muslim Brotherhood or some other radical Islamic bunch that we are supporting??

And why do Liberals hate being asked questions like that? 🙂

But watching Liberals trying to defend this as a war that isn’t a war, a regime change that isn’t a regime change, to save the people from Moammar without “getting” Moammar and the pretzel logic twists in the wind is fabulously funny.

But ultimately, it’s very sad.

But that’s what happens when Liberals are in charge, you get the new leader of the Free World, Nicolas Sarkozy– THE FRENCH!!!

Are you kidding me!?

Can we just surrender now… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Adams vs Freud

Before we get to today’s blog. I thought I would share this nugget of wisdom from the Far Left.

And they don’t get too much farther left than MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

Last Night he said  that when white men call Obama “flippant” or “arrogant,” that is a racist code word.

Isn’t that fascinating…. 😦

Now on with the Show…

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.” — President Obama in the State of the Union Speech.

Gee, didn’t we hear this last year and then Democrats shut down and shut out the Republicans completely?

Even Obama said at a picnic for the AFL-CIO that they had “no ideas”.

Yet every time they were presented them they were shot down with extreme prejudice.

So is this the sequel?

I think the Republican should charge forward and say, “here they are” so the Democrats can nuke them again.

Just to show The People just how uninterested the Democrats really are in anything anyone says to them.

Ideas Like Portability (buying insurance across state lines) and Tort Reform.

But since Tort Reform means the Democrats would have to piss off their lobbyist buddies in the Trial Lawyers that’s not happening.

So Republicans should push it.

That should make the Democrats squirm.

George Will:

Barack Obama tiptoed Wednesday night along the seam that bifurcates the Democratic Party’s brain. The seam separates that brain’s John Quincy Adams lobe from its Sigmund Freud lobe.

The dominant liberal lobe favors Adams’ dictum that politicians should not be “palsied by the will of our constituents.” It exhorts Democrats to smack Americans with what is good for them — health care reform, carbon rationing, etc. — even if the dimwits do not desire it.

The other lobe whispers Freud’s reality principle: Restrain your id — the pleasure principle and the impulse toward immediate gratification. Settle for deferred and diminished but achievable results.

Obama was mostly in Adams’ mode Wednesday. His nods to reality were, however, notable.

Such speeches must be listened to with a third ear that hears what is not said.

Unmentioned was organized labor’s “card check” legislation to abolish workers’ rights to secret ballots in unionization elections. Obama’s perfunctory request for a “climate bill” — the term “cap-and-trade” was as absent as the noun “Guantanamo” — was not commensurate with his certitude that life on Earth may drown in rising seas.

Last Feb. 24, when unemployment was 8.2%, Obama said in the second sentence of his speech to Congress that the economy “is a concern that rises above all others” and later that his agenda “begins with jobs.” After 11 months of health care monomania, he said Wednesday that “jobs must be our No. 1 focus.” Unemployment is 10%.

He called Wednesday for a third stimulus (the first was his predecessor’s, in February 2008) although the S-word has been banished in favor of “jobs bill.” It will inject into the economy money that government siphons from the economy, thereby somehow creating jobs. And you thought alchemy was strange.

Not until the 33rd minute of Wednesday’s 70-minute address did Obama mention health care. The weirdness of what he said made it worth the wait.

Dim Americans

Acknowledging that the longer the public has looked at the legislation the less the public has liked it, he blamed himself for not “explaining it more clearly.” But his faux contrition actually blames the public: The problem is not the legislation’s substance but the presentation of it to slow learners.

He urged them to take “another look at the plan we’ve proposed.” The plan? The differences between the House and Senate plans are not trivial; they concern how to pay for the enormous new entitlement.

Last Feb. 24, with a grandiosity with which the nation has become wearily familiar, he said, “Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last 30 days than we have in the last decade.”

He was referring to the expansion of eligibility to an existing entitlement — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. But that expansion was minor compared with the enormous new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs created under Obama’s predecessor. Before the Massachusetts nuisance, this year’s speech was to be a self-coronation of the “last” president to deal with health care.

Last Feb. 24, he said he had an activist agenda because of the recession, “not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” Ninety-seven days later, he bought General Motors.

Truth Deficit

Wednesday night’s debut of Obama as avenging angel of populism featured one of those opaque phrases — the “weight of our politics” — that third-rate speechwriters slip past drowsy editors. Obama seems to regret the existence in Washington of … everyone else.

He seems to feel entitled to have his way without tiresome interventions in the political process by the many interests affected by his agenda for radical expansion of the regulatory state. Speaking of slow learners, liberals do not notice the connection between expansion of government and expansion of (often defensive) activities referred to under the rubric of “lobbying.”

Lamenting Washington’s “deficit of trust,” Obama gave an example of the reason for it when he brassily declared: “We are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.” This flagrant falsehood enlarges Washington’s deficit of truth: He proposes freezing some discretionary spending — about one-eighth of government spending.

Obama’s leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily it is toxic — yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc. Talk about a divided brain.

****

Obama: “I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change — or that I can deliver it.”

It’s the Change you want to bring that scares the crap out me, Mr. President!!

It’s the economy, stupid!

Not your pet liberal fantasies.

But I don’t think they want to hear that. 🙂