A New Era of Responsibility

This is a screenshot from Apple’s website. I heart Apple. I use only Apple products. I have an iPhone, a Mac Book Pro, and an iPod. I am planning on getting an iPad as soon as it has a camera. So I’m not knocking Apple’s products. Just Apple’s lefty creds.

And by the way, a new era of responsibility? Stimulus, health care, “police acted stupidly”, support of the Ground Zero mosque, dithering about the troops and then declaring a pull-out date, 10% unemployment…. And it’s a new era of responsibility?

I am smugly pleased to say “I told you so” to those moronic Obama supporters who have now come to see that he’s just a plain old Marxist, nothing more.

How Amazing Is Your Super Bowl Party?

Because you’re paying for one at the White House. Today the President has graced Katie Couric an interview about his feelings on the Super Bowl. This evening a “nonpartisan” (with one Republican) Super Bowl party will be held at the White House.

How much is this costing me?

Incidentally, I find it funny that last week President Obama said to the Republican caucus that we should all support one another, and root for one another. I wonder if he’ll be rooting for the Colts or the Saints… or both?

His lack of understanding about the nature of competition should be on full display this evening.

Geaux Saints!

Obama More Polarizing Than Bush

A new Gallup pollshows that President Obama has managed to become even more disliked among the right than President Bush was among the left during his first year in office.

The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats’ (88%) and Republicans’ (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

All the details revealed in this poll are fascinating. As our country faces diminishing economic freedom, Obama’s support among Democrats remains steadfast. One must wonder exactly what Democrats were voting for when they voted for Obama.

Barack Obama: There’s An App For That

In case you just can’t get enough of President Obama, the White House has graciously created a free app for the iPhone so you can have have all Obama, all the time. The app provides everything there is to know about the president, including blog posts, a newsroom, photos, vids, and even live feeds from various events, including speeches and press room briefings.

On the one hand, I sort of enjoy the movements of the President being documented this way. On the other, I just don’t know how anyone, even David Axlerod or Michelle Obama, can handle that much Barack.

Obama Accepts Responsibility!

An amazing thing happened today, though I’m quite sure it was an accident. Today Obama responded to Scott Brown’s senate win by saying:

Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

Since Obama has been President for a full year now, it is gratifying to see that he is now including his own inept presidency as part of the problem.

Of course, he did not mean it that way. And of course he is delusional. But I have swallowed the Obama kool-aid. I have HOPE that in November, we will have change: a departure from socialism.

Thanks, O.

Famous Visitors To The White House

Obama has opened the books, releasing the names of those who have visited the White House.

Norm Eisen, special counsel to the President, had a rather defensive statement about some of the visitors. This is the paragraph from the CNN article:

Given that up to 100,000 people visit the White House each month, the names published Friday included people with some very familiar names — including William Ayers, Michael Jordan, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright and R. Kelly — that did not belong to their more famous counterparts, he said.

What are the chances that the president has met two or more Jeremiah Wrights and William Ayers? I’ve never met anyone named “Jeremiah” or “Ayers” and yet Obama has had the strange opportunity to meet two people with the same names of people that have caused him trouble in the past. What are the chances?

Just Because

The cast of Oval Gangbangers 4: Timmah! President Unicorn, Bernake thinking “I’m With Stupid” and some random lesbian.


If All Your Friends Were Like The LA Times

The Los Angeles Times is concealing a video showing Barack Obama at a going away party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, attended by radical Palestinian activists and former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.. Both Little Green Footballs and Gateway Pundit are all over the story, asking for readers to demand the LA Times release the video after the writer, Peter Wallsten said he won’t release the video or reveal his sources.

The fact that the MSM is withholding possible game-changing material in the days before a presidential election is unconscionable. But enough is known about the video that we can possibly put to rest the fiction that Bill Ayers was “just a guy in Obama’s neighborhood.” He was, and is, a political ally with a radical agenda which incorporates the destruction of the United States as we know it. Whether or not Obama’s supporters actually agree with that agenda should be left up to them to decide – not the LAT.

The question has uncomfortable parallels to the comments by some European socialist in 2002 that it was fine if Swedes or Dutch or whoever vote themselves into Sharia law; that’s what a democracy is all about. Is it fine if Americans vote themselves into socialism?

I think not, since socialism is at odds with the Founding Fathers’ values of rugged individualism. The Constitution doesn’t outline an economic system but it seems logical that free-markets, which give the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity to the greatest number of people, is preferable to socialism in any degree, which gives the power to government. It makes us all supplicants to the state.

If that is our fate, shouldn’t we at least have the ability to know it? Shouldn’t we know what we’re getting with any presidential candidate?

This newest weasel move by a so-called reputable paper got me thinking about what would happen if we all had friends like the Los Angeles Times. I have to admit, it would be pretty awesome to have someone who forgot every time you hung out with unsavory characters, someone who endorsed you no matter what, someone who remembered every bad, embarrassing thing about your enemies – and when there was nothing to remember, just made crap up.

Barack Obama has not made any comment on the tape, and since his buddies at the big coastal dailies are not about to cooperate in any investigation into the matter, it will come down to each individual to try and get the story for himself and every other voter. In that sense, we are all bloggers today.

Let us not elect a terrorist into the White House in 2008. We can do better. And the LA Times should be ashamed.

The LAT is running a story this morning about the video and reports:

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

That’s noble. I keep my promises to sources too, but if one of them was hanging out with an FBI Most Wanted criminal, they’d be in custody faster than you could say “First Amendment.”

Why is this subject a source of so much angst to reporters? Why are they so beholden to sources that they’re willing to compromise their personal and professional integrity to protect them? The argument is that without confidential sources, nobody would come forward to report on corporate malfeasance or political shenanigans. Whistleblowers would be left out in the cold. But the opposite is not true – those who are doing devious things, socializing with terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who would blow up the LA Times building and everyone inside if they got a chance to do so are deemed so worthy of our protections and confidence that that the reporters happily turn a blind eye. The bad guys are given infinite protections.

I think the fact that this is a presidential candidate and not, say, some CEO is also relevant. This is the future of our country. We have the right to know who his supporters, friends, allies, and lobbyists are. I wonder, if the tape showed him palling around with Osama bin Laden, would the journalist in question still be as reticent to reveal the tape? My instinct says yes.

It seems to me that just because you put on your reporter hat, you don’t abandon your integrity. But the LA Times has done just that. By keeping a promise to a source, they are betraying everyone else.


Debbie Schlussel spoke to Wallsten, and then he immediately plagiarized her work. Again: Integrity, anyone?


Drudge remembers that the LAT had no problem releasing a controversial Arnold tape. Perhaps the Arnold source didn’t require the promise of confidentiality. That promise, it would seem, is rock solid. It’s the law.

Obama Equals Failure

The two elections I’ve blogged – 2004 and 2006 midterms – have been ferocious battles, but I have no historical perspective on them. I can look back and see what other people said, but I have no first-hand information about how, for instance, the election of 2000 was different or the same as the 2004. I think that this is because the game has changed so dramatically. In 2000, our concerns were about the “energy crisis” (looks so quaint to me now) and …. well, that’s all I remember. Then when the USA was attacked by Muslim terrorists in 2001, we all got a little more serious. Our national defense became a priority, which ushered in the new era of politics. We are confronted with such huge problems that we just don’t have the luxury of being disinterested or distracted by stupid crap like the environment and nationalizing health care. War, illegal immigration, energy independence, a grave financial outlook require serious leadership.

Barack Obama is a terrorist-loving socialist who has been caught numerous times on tape saying things about white people that would cause a full-scale race war if white people uttered such things about black people. Do you remember when Whoopie Goldberg asked John McCain if he’s elected president, will she be a slave again? I’d love to see a white person ask Obama if he plans to enslave us. (Also Whoopie, yes, you will be my slave. Hi!) I think he’d probably say no, but you know he’s teaming up with his cabinet to figure out the health benefits of his house slaves vs. the field slaves.

Another super-bizarre thing he says is that we have to grow the economy “from the bottom up.” How does that work? Has a poor man ever given you a job?

Such statements provoke a worldview that is not just unrealistic but is outright floridly psychotic. By suggesting that wealth can be “spread” at all, he is completely removing the factor of personal talent, ability and education. By giving some crack whore a check for two million dollars, what does he think is going to happen? The crack whore will suddenly change her ways, open a business, and start brushing up on her federal tax law statutes? No, she’ll spend on crack, a tricked out Acura with spinnaz, and all the Wet Seal clothes she can fit into the trunk. And what are the donors of this wealth supposed to do once their money is gone? Why go to Harvard to earn money in the first place? Why even bother to get up in the morning if despite your rigorous attention to your cash position, your good education, your fifteen years as a manager, you’re now going to work for 10% of your previous salary?

All socialists (perhaps all idealists) fail to take into account the unmanageable factor of human behavior.

The overwhelmingly socialist programs are not what America needs. Spreading wealth around? How about creating new wealth instead? How about getting our corporate tax rate to a competitive level so companies will move here? That will allow companies to hire more people, supply employees with health plans, and keep workers consuming. Workers will buy cars and mortgages and bird cages and diamonds if they’re making money. They’ll tip the taxi drivers better, so the taxi driver can go home and buy steak for his family once a month. They’ll be able to afford gym memberships, which keep health care costs down, and which will help employ pool boys and front desk clerks.

This is how a healthy economy works.

The idea that one can be elected in 2008 to institute such dangerous, stupid, wrong-headed policies terrifies me. Even just a four-year Obama administration will set America back an entire generation. It just can’t be allowed to happen.

Obama Hearts Buffet

I’m uncomfortable with the way Obama is dropping the name “Warren Buffet” in every campaign stop, every press release, every spontaneous ropeline comment. It’s a naked attempt to gain economic credibility by leeching it from Buffet – to impute the success of Buffet into the junior senator from Illinois.

I have to wonder if Buffet feels a bit uncomfortable with the constant name-dropping.

The latest example is from this videoin which he rebukes Senator McCain’s comment that Obama was “socialist” (not a socialist, but “socialist”). He says, “It’s kinda hard to figure how Warren Buffet endorsed me, Colin Powell endorsed me and John McCain thinks I am practicing socialism…. His argument…is that because I want to give a tax cut to 95% of people…”

Apparently I was wrong about his Ivy League educated base; they’re apparently all idiots who have no critical thinking skills at all. Of course, McCain does not object to a tax cut; he objects to taking from the rich to give to the poor. Or not even the rich but the barely middle-class.

Why Warren Buffet might support such a plan, I don’t know. Perhaps he feels guilty for having so much money he could put the whole mortgage crisis on his Visa card. Maybe he just doesn’t care if he loses all his money. I don’t know. But I don’t believe that any endorsement validates any candidate’s plan.

Buffet is not acting like a socialist. He is scooping up deals everywhere right now because he can buy low, practicing the first fundamental law of capitalism. The fact that Buffet supports the plan does not mean that its not socialist. Furthermore, Warren Buffet isn’t running for president; he has no power to force us to comply with these socialist policies. But Obama not only is a socialist, he’s not only said just today that he wants to change the world and the USA, he is just radical enough to actually try to implement those extreme and dangerous policies.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,331 other followers

%d bloggers like this: