"Surrealism at its most annoying"

S.E. Cupp pegs Obama's dhimmi fear with this piece, starting with the title Islamic extremist terrorism: The scourge that Obama dare not name. I like how she begins, comparing the administrations unrealism to French surrealism. Here's the gist:

To the average person, it's pretty clear we're at war with Islamic extremists. Yet, to hear President Obama tell it, we are not technically at war, and even if we are, he wants you to believe religion has little to do with it.

He and his surrogates have repeatedly refused to say the words "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" when describing our enemies in groups like Al Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra, ISIS and Boko Haram, just to name a few.

His administration was caught flatfooted last week when White House spokesman Eric Schultz painfully strained to justify negotiating with Taliban, insisting it was not a terrorist group but "an armed insurgency."

Surreal indeed.

Whether linguistic subterfuge or merely semantic nitpicking, it's a curious use of caution from an administration that has repeatedly gotten out over its skis on issues of foreign policy.

The list is long: Al Qaeda's been decimated. ISIS is Al Qaeda's "jayvee" team. Yemen is a success. Benghazi was about a video.

Obama is constantly speaking in brash declaratives about terrorism, and is often subsequently proven wrong. But uttering the words "Islamic extremism" is too reckless?

Here's why I don't hesitate to call Obama a dhimmi.

[T]he White House is not Islam's PR shop. It's up to moderate Muslims to denounce radical Islam. The job of the President is to clearly name our enemies, not play word tricks on the public.

The Obama White House isn't supposed to be Islam's PR shop. But it has been playing that role since his inauguration in this refusal to name the enemy properly and by properly, I mean with the proper noun Islam and its derivatives.

Hold Obama Accountable for Benghazi

Some prudence, please.

You can be "too prudent" in politics, I suppose, and end up as a mushy moderate afraid to offend anyone. But the Conservative Daily people don't have that problem. I had started getting their emails about half a year ago even though I hadn't signed up for them. As a conservative, I agree with most of what they believe in. Their main action item, however, is strategic nonsense, namely the impeachment of Barack Obama. Check that search link; it's pretty much a topic in every email they send me, and I suppose they are proud that they don't let weak-kneed cowards like me talk them into pushing for more reasonable goals such as electing conservatives like Mia Love or fighting Obamacare like the good people at Health Care Compact.

But here's my question. What happens in the off-chance that they succeed at impeachment of President Obama? Basically they would have spent a large amount of political capital to purchase (drum roll...) President Joseph Biden! It would be a slight variation on Marvel's HYDRA villain myth: "cut off one head and three-eighths of a head shall take its place." I also can imagine a cheesy K-tel announcer's voice: "But wait... that's not all. You will also receive a complimentary Vice President Hillary Clinton free of charge!" Yep--all teed up for her 2016 run.

Of course I think that these sort of groups are really just collecting money for vanity causes which they know won't succeed. And they are only one of the groups from which I get crazy emails. It does irritate me that they probably bought my email from a more legitimate source, but I don't want to restrict their freedom of speech or the ability of both mailing list buyers and sellers to engage in commerce. That's why I've posted my thoughts on Conservative Daily here, along with a general warning based on Churchill's wisdom concerning strategy and results. I've become very wary of posers and shysters in the world of the "tea party" and conservatism at large; of course I'm not the first nor the smartest to notice. My other action was to unsubscribe from their emails.

Red flags

Thanks, Pauli, for letting me post here.  Hope I can make an occasional worthwhile contribution.

So . . . here I am, a handgun owner (at the encouragement and nudging by my son – imagine that), wondering why the recent gun control “conversation” is bugging me more than many things these days. Something doesn’t seem right about it, beyond the obvious that this was going to be the type of conversation in which they tell us what is going to be done and we are going to listen.

I guess it is because there are all these red flags popping up.  We have horrible evil perpetrated on innocent children, and much to-do that something has to be done, even “if it saves only one life”, but what we get are proposals that have little to do with solving the stated problem. 

If the solutions being trumpeted don’t solve the stated problem (esp. in a high profile case like this), you can be sure that there is another agenda in mind.   

Another red flag is the perversion of fundamental principles that has sadly become a habit with our current ruling class.  They refer to the free exercise of religion as ”freedom of worship” (culminating, so far, in the HHS mandate).  We saw it writ large in Obama’s second inaugural address, asserting that our unalienable right to liberty requires “collective action”. There has been a constant drip of this attitude, giving us the “sense that those who played by the rules and did well have instead done something wrong, or at least are under suspicion — and it is now time for their government to seek atonement from them”.

And on the gun issue, Obama tells us that he has “profound respect for the traditions of hunting”, and Biden tells us how many rounds hunters need.  This is a perversion of our natural right to defend our lives against an aggressor and the moral obligation to defined the lives of innocent others, as Pauli ably stated, not to mention our natural right to self-government rather than tyranny.

These red flags tell us that the current “gun control” proposals are not so much about “guns”, but are instead about “control".  The ruling class is demanding that we cede to the State at least part of our natural right to self-defense and our moral obligation to defend others, for our own safety, of course.  (Or not.)  But as the Declaration asserts, and as we Catholics especially know, we cannot cede our natural rights or our moral accountability – we remain obligated and accountable to protect innocent life.  A government that applies its power to take for itself our God-given rights and responsibilities violates the natural rights of man, and offends human dignity.  More on that topic here.

So yes, something ought to bug me.  This is a defining issue, IMO, masquerading as something happening on the edges.  We must resist this attempt, saying so based on principle rather than because we are specifically affected by the details. Why do we law-abiding citizens need high-capacity magazines? Not because I want one, but because we don’t want a fair fight if we must defend ourselves from an aggressor (or multiple aggressors), as is our right and obligation. Why do we fight a federal requirement to do a background check when we sell (or give) a weapon to our good friend down the street? Not because I don’t want the hassle, but because the federal government has no power over that transaction (nope, not even the commerce clause). Why do we law-abiding citizens need “assault” rifles? Not because the definition is a sham or because it is the best tool for what I want to do, but because “… we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.”. 

We live in an era of government-by-anecdote, in which every non-optimal event fitting the narrative turns into a call for federal action. Even if we avoid this current threat, some day there will be another bad result simply because evil and human imperfection exist. Like Pauli said, we need to take whatever "equal time" we can get to repeat those principles necessary to argue and defend against the creeping tyranny of "something has to be done" when the next bad event happens, as it necessarily will.

* More disclosure – I sold my second .45 to a friend of mine this weekend (don’t need two guns shooting the same round, especially at 50 cents per).  Don’t worry – I didn’t launder it through a ridiculous “buyback” nor sell it to a street thug or lunatic.  I sold it to a good friend who is on our parish pastoral committee, as a matter of fact.

It's time for Faithful Catholics to throw the "Faithful Citizenship" mess in the garbage

I'm a bit behind on this, but I really wanted to report on this entire "Faithful Citizenship" fiasco.There are all kinds of Democrat activists running this show; Karen Leith, and Patrick O'Bryan from Catholic Charities are two names that come up in the list of the usual suspects. I don't know how involved the Bishop is in this travesty. You can call his office at 216-696-6525, ext 2030, and voice your concerns.

I just called to find out if there are any more meetings. I heard a rumor that there is one more meeting tonight at St. Clarence Church in North Olmsted at 7pm. Supposedly the Bishop's secretary is going to call me back if there is a meeting--we'll see if she does.

Here's the email from Cleveland Right to Life which I received two days ago:
- - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday - September 25th 2012

Further to our press release yesterday about a series of "Faithful Citizenship" forums orchestrated by the Cleveland Diocese and intended to help Catholics understand the issues in the upcoming election, we have more evidence that they are being led by people who have strong ties to the Democrat Party. This is a problem! 

Now, having ties to the Democrat Party in and of itself is not the problem (this is America). Rather the problem is the bias of the forums due to the political leanings of the forum leaders. Here we have the leaders of the Cleveland Diocesan Social Action Office, employed and paid by the Diocese and under the direction of the Bishop's Office, hosting a "Faithful Citizenship" forum series while at the same time being openly and strongly aligned with the Democrat Party. The outcome of this forum leadership is that the "Faithful Catholic Citizen" in attendance is leaving with at best a muddled understanding of Catholic Teaching and how it applies to the issues in play during this election. But even worse, many are coming away from these forums with the impression that there is no moral hierarchy (the absolute antitheses of Catholic Teaching) and that the Truths enumerated by our Founding Fathers are no longer relevant.

One would expect the Diocese to be non-partisan; but these forums have at least the appearance of a Diocesan endorsement of the Democrat position on the issues.

Herewith some background on just two of the forum leaders namely Karen Leith, and Patrick O'Bryan. As we have previously noted, Leith has publically identified herself on FaceBook as a supporter of Obama and is also a past board member of a dissident Catholic organization called Future Church. And O'Bryan was trained in Chicago by none other than the Industrial Areas Foundation, (IAF); an organization that has the distinction of being the first community organizing group founded by Saul Alinsky. But why should we be concerned about the IAF and Saul Alinsky? Well the IAF has never deviated from its roots that include strong ties to the far left and the Democrat Party and their training still embraces methods as laid out by Saul Alinsky in his book, "Rules for Radicals". This is the same book that is dedicated to Lucifer. Hmmm .... Strange place to go for the Truth as taught by the Church!

Here are some of the groups and organizations that the leaders of these forums are associated with and/or have referenced in their presentations:

Catholics For a Greater Cleveland Congregation: On their website the GCC openly declares that they are:"part of the Industrial Areas Foundation, the nation's first and largest network of multi-faith coalitions, and we draw on their seven decades of experience winning tough battles across the nation." Remember that in 2008 ACORN which is also "part of the Industrial Areas Foundation" was doing the work now tasked to GCC in Cleveland, so one has to wonder if "elections" are the "tough battles" the GCC is referencing.

FutureChurch:The Cleveland Catholic Diocese has disavowed this group as being "not consistent with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church"

Call to Action:  

• FutureChurch is the Cleveland chapter of Call to Action
• Call to Action's members were officially excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz of Nebraska, a decision affirmed by the Vatican in November of 2006 with this statement: "The judgment of the Holy See is that the activities of Call to Action in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint. Thus to be a member of this association or to support it is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic faith" (emphasis added).
• Call to Action supports "Catholics for a Free Choice" which the US Bishops have said is an arm of the abortion industry
• Supports Gay Marriage
• Call to Action is closely aligned with NETWORK

NETWORK: This Lobby group played a significant role in the passage of ObamaCare and has been identified by the Catholic Church as NOT representing the Catholic Church teachings. Consider these facts:

• Sr. Simone Campbell, Executive Director is a regular speaker for the Cleveland Social Action Office.
• Network wrote the now famous "nuns letter" that was instrumental to the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
• Network currently has a "Nuns on the Bus" national tour to oppose the Paul Ryan Budget. Public Relations for "Nuns on the Bus" was supplied by "Faith in Public Life" which is funded by billionaire Democrat supporter George Soros.
• Campbell spoke at the 2012 Democrat National Convention and in 2008 gave the Benediction.
• NETWORK is a partner of "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good" of whom Archbishop Caput said in 2008: Groups friendly to the Democrat Party such as "Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress prolifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn."

JustFaith: A discredited organization that is infiltrating the local diocesan churches with programs that are NOT supported by Catholic doctrine, such as liberation theology (rooted in Marxism), support for homosexual lifestyle, extreme pacificism and environmentalism. In addition the JustFaith program follows and is closely aligned with that followed by The PICO National Network, the Industrial Areas Foundation, The Gamaliel Foundation & Direct Action and Research Training (DART). These organizations are all members of members of the Alinskian (Industrial Areas Foundation) Network that we referenced above. Yes, the same organization whose founder dedicated his community organizing guidebook to Lucifer!

Justfaith is also a partner with NETWORK who lobbied extensively for the Affordable Care Act that has now resulted in 1^st Amendment violations against Religious Freedom with the Catholic Church as its first target.

JustFaith also in their Fall 2009 newsletter counseled readers to join the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) in working on women's issues. Well the IWPR has on their website their "Policy Update on Safe and Legal Abortion, 30 Years after Roe v. Wade".

And there is a lot more about JustFaith that should be of major concern to serious Catholics but we will leave that for a later eblast.

Evolutionary Christianity: A smorgasbord of New Age theology that has very little to do with Catholicism or a Biblical worldview.

The writing is pretty clearly up on the wall. The official Catholic Church has plainly stated they outright reject or have serious issue with the philosophies and goals of these groups and organizations. The Social Action Office of the Cleveland Catholic Diocese needs to clean house if they expect to be taken seriously by Catholics. The Cleveland Bishop should terminate the employment of anyone connected to these groups and revamp the current forums to reflect true Catholic beliefs that are rooted in Natural Law principals, Biblical moral absolutes and the principal of subsidiarity. There is no place in such forums for Moral Relativism, Humanism, Objectivism, Secularism and New Age Spiritualism. The current series has serious flaws because many of the presenters are twisting Catholic teachings to neatly fit the hymnal of the Democrat National Platform.

In 2008 Cleveland Area Catholics were given misleading counsel with respect to the issues in the election with the net result that most of the Catholic swing vote went to Barack Obama despite him being what Archbishop Caput called the "most committed 'abortion-rights' presidential candidate since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973." 

Correcting the on-going bias in the Social Action Office and Faithful Citizenship forums will not turn every Catholic vote but it will move the swing vote sufficiently to protect human life.  
- - - - - - - - - - -
This reminds me of the CCHD debacle, but that was/is on the fund-raising side. This is obviously on the get-out-the-vote side of things and the target is Ohio Catholics.

I'm planning to go to any events I can to see them up close and report on them. I'll keep everyone posted on what I discover here. I usually try to be low key about this kind of thing, but I'm done. Obama and the left have to be defeated this November. I'll gladly stand up on Judgment Day and say "Yeah, I helped kicked these people out."

If peace talks are approaching, hit the bunkers

That seems to be a good take-away from this incident where Hamas killed four Israeli civilians. When you live in Israel and hear that peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians are imminent, go on increased alert and prepare to defend yourself from Hamas terrorist attacks. Or else your death might be used as a stake in the heart of the talks. You'll become a human sword, which is even worse than a human shield.

Here's the White House's response:

The White House, in a statement, condemned the attack, saying it "underscores how far the enemies of peace will go to try to block progress. It is crucial that the parties persevere, keep moving forward even through difficult times."

OK, but could be stronger. I guess they have to be diplomatic, but wouldn't it be nice if they could peg those responsible.

Despite occasional attacks, Israeli security officials say the past year has been one of the most peaceful in Israel's history. Officials credit the improved functioning of Palestinian security forces, the Israeli military's efforts against militants, and the deterrent effect they say was created by Israel's wars against the Palestinian uprising in 2001, Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006 and Hamas in Gaza in 2009.

Maybe there's hope....

Jeremy Lott on Biden's Summer Propaganda Tour

Jeremy Lott provides us with a good comparitive analysis between the current economic hard times and the situation in another mid-term election year, 1982. Here's a teaser:

What they are hoping for is something like a replay of the 1982 elections. Going into those midterms, Republicans controlled the White House and held a majority of seats in the Senate. They also enjoyed considerable sway in the House of Representatives, thanks to a bloc of conservative Southern Democrats. John Samples, political scientist at the Cato Institute, wrote in his new book The Struggle to Limit Government that the midterms "should have been an unmitigated disaster for the GOP." Consider: "It was held during a severe recession. Unemployment was over 10 percent of the workforce. The election of 1982 focused on the economic policies of the president." (Full disclosure: I used to work for Cato in the media department.)

But the Reagan administration "urged voters to stay the course" and, to a certain extent, Samples argues, it worked. Republicans lost 26 seats in the House and zero in the Senate. It wasn't a walk off grand slam but several economic models had predicted they would lose 50 to 58 seats in the House alone. For the Republicans it was a setback but a minor one. Reagan followed it two years later with a 49-state victory over former Vice President Walter Mondale.

At this point in 2010, things are looking so bad for President Obama's party that a loss of only 26 House seats would be seen as a resounding victory and a slap in the face to obstructionist Republicans and tempestuous tea partiers. If Obama can escape blame for the abysmal state of the economy, the current thinking goes, then his party might escape with only minimal losses.

Then he goes on to illustrate the differences between Reagan's and Obama's situations. In his first two years as President, Reagan's approval had not slipped into negative territory like Obama's has. Current polling demonstrates that most people think the administrations efforts to stimulate the ecomony has failed. And, of course, Reagan did not have to suffer the crippling effect of having Joe Biden as a spokesperson for his policies.

Biden last week acknowledged that, though he thought the administration's efforts would do some good, an awful lot of damage has been done. "There's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession," he told an audience of Wisconsin Democrats. (On the same visit to Milwaukee, he called a custard shop manager a "smartass" for suggesting the administration lower taxes.)

Honestly....

Smudged

Liz Sidoti explains why the Sestak thing is bad for Obama regardless of the legality of lack thereof. Excerpt:

White House counsel Robert Bauer said what transpired was neither illegal nor unethical.

But he also said: "There have been numerous reported instances in the past when prior administrations — both Democratic and Republicans and motivated by the same goals — discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office."

Fair enough.

But Obama has held himself to a different standard. By that measurement, and in this case, he failed to deliver.

As a candidate, Obama cast himself as above partisan sniping and political maneuvering — even as he proved to be a shrewd politician able to broker deals. He promised voters turned off by politics and Washington — and yearning for change that this fresh-faced, political newcomer offered — that he would do things differently from his predecessors.

Of course I never saw Barack Obama as being above doing anything dirty. He hasn't proven to be any different than all those white guys except he can probably get away with more. But a lot of people just believe what they hear on TV about transparency, post-partisanship and thrills going up legs. So Sidoti is right—he's damaged by this even absent an investigation for which it would not be wise to hold one's breath in anticipation.

Of course it would be great watching Obama swirling down right after Specter disappeared.

Eric Cantor argues that the GOP has reformed itself

Eric Cantor responds to the DCCC calls to step in line behind the Boss. Excerpt:

Perhaps the GOP of 2005 would have taken the bait and swallowed the administration’s bad medicine. After all, Republicans during that period were guilty of spending too much and growing government too much, both of which would become hallmarks of the February 2009 stimulus plan and the loaded agenda that would follow. That GOP became a bloated, go-along to get-along body that forgot how to lead. We blew it, and we were rightfully fired by our bosses – the American people.

After this admission of guilt, he goes on with the evidence for a "not so fast" argument. It's a good read; Cantor is a great communicator and hopefully will be a great future leader. And of course, we hope he's right about the party.

Historic low for "trust in government" poll numbers

My previous post linked to a piece in Investor's Business Daily stating that only 22% of Americans polled favor a Value-added Tax be implemented. Now I'm looking at Dan Henninger's "Democrats at the Edge of the Cliff" article in WSJ and he's pointing out the record low in public trust of government, also 22%.


I don't think this is a coincidence; I think this 22% represents the same people.

There are some more ominous numbers in the last 2 paragraphs:

A Quinnipiac poll released yesterday has the Obama presidential approval rating down to 44%—after health care, after the arms treaty with Russia, after the 47-nation, anti-proliferation convocation in Washington.

He insists on more government. People want less, and don't trust what they've got. They want reform. Here's the Pew blowout data:

In 1994 when the Democrats lost over 50 House seats at mid-term, the party's favorable rating was 62%, and for the Congress they controlled it was 53%. They still got killed. Now the party's favorable is 38% and Congress's approval is 25%. The Republicans' numbers are low, too, but they're not in charge.

The Democratic Party is on the edge of an electoral cliff with a long fall to the bottom. No wonder they're seeing a demon under every bed.

"Something between France and Greece"

Please bear with the advertising at the beginning, this is worth watching.

Source.

Ed Koch: "Foul whiff of Munich"

Read it and weep, seriously. Excerpt:

The Times also reported that “Mr. Chavez had suggested before Mr. Putin’s arrival that the countries could cooperate ambitiously on nuclear energy and a satellite-launching base in Venezuela.”

What would we do if Venezuela invited Russia to build a missile launch pad, or Russia provided Venezuela with the plans and materials for building nuclear weapons? Would there be a replay of the Cuban missile crisis of the 1960s?

Based on our continuing failure to confront North Korea and Iran with regard to their nuclear activities, I suspect we would do nothing. I fear that we have lost the battle and lost our nerve. It appears that the Obama administration has decided to live with the idea that these two rogue states—North Korea and Iran—can do as they please on the nuclear front.

There is a foul whiff of Munich and appeasement in the air.

Word on the Street

The other day I had new garage door openers installed. The old ones worked OK, but they had weak safety features. Here's a quote from the installer, a small businessman:

"A lot of installers will be going out of business because of new EPA regulations dealing with disposal of old garage doors. You have to buy special bags to put them in, plus you have to register each one, fill out forms about lead paint--that kind of thing. That's Hope and Change for you. But just wait a year and this is going to seem like nothing. I'm telling you, Hope and Change is going to hit hard, man. Just wait."

But wait... I thought they wanted to help small businesses? Oh, yeah, I forgot. They don't understand the first thing about what real business people need.

Redefining Patriotic

Andrew McCarthy's 'Representing' al-Qaeda is a must-read if you want to know the extent to which Eric Holder and the Obama Administration will go to blame Bush and set terrorists free. Prepare to be enraged. Excerpt:

The attorney general’s pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of “representation” shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, informing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers “desk torturers”); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo’s layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.

I'm telling you, she's a man

Keep America Safe: "100 Hours" from Keep America Safe on Vimeo.

Obama screws the CIA

Remember the mock outrage about the Valerie Plame non-story? Well check this out from Redstate. Excerpt:

It appears Barack Obama inexperience and amateurishness has just started bonfires on the bridges connecting him to the American intelligence community and delivered a huge, HUGE psychological win to Al Qaeda.

People tell me the President’s rush to acknowledge the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan and mourn the deaths openly, publicly, and via press release is a huge no no. The CIA and greater intelligence community would prefer not to have the attention put on them. Additionally, because the President took the time to draft a blanket statement focused on the CIA in general instead of individually and more privately focusing on the families of the victims, it acknowledges the CIA’s work in Afghanistan, acknowledges that the attack has an impact on the CIA, and gives the terrorists a new recruiting tool — “you too can cause America to publicly mourn the loss of their spies.”

To you and me this may not seem like a big deal. But I’m told this is hugely significant and shows just how out of touch the Obama administration is with the intelligence community. I’m told that no other President has issued such blanket statements of public mourning directed toward an attack on the CIA and thereby having the White House itself confirming an attack on our intelligence community.

Then he links to this piece of devastation. It turns out that Obama had been at least to some degree warned about the Christmas sausage bomber incident. Excerpt:

Presidential aides are concerned that Obama will somehow be unfairly accused of dropping the ball on the fight against terrorists in Yemen—a country where, in fact, the evidence suggests that Obama, as early as last summer, ordered a significant increase in U.S. intelligence activity. In the weeks before the Christmas incident, several U.S. officials have told NEWSWEEK, Obama authorized a major expansion in U.S. intelligence, military, and material support to Yemen's government—an escalation that some officials acknowledge could be characterized as a new covert war. But Obama's public and private actions in expanding counterterrorism operations in Yemen may not help him avoid answering further questions about what intelligence agencies told him—and didn't tell him—about possible threats to the U.S. homeland in the days and weeks before the alleged underpants bomber boarded his Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

Italics mine. Because President Bush was never unfairly accused of anything, was he?

F

You have to read the British press to get anything resembling common sense about Obama. In this scathing take-down, Toby Harndon gives the big guy a failing grade in counter-terrorism.

In his studied desire to be the unBush by responding coolly to events like this, Obama is dangerously close to failing as a leader. Yes, it is good not to shoot from the hip and make broad assertions without the facts. But Obama took three days before speaking to the American people, emerging on Monday in between golf and tennis games in Hawaii to deliver a rather tepid address that significantly underplayed what happened. He described Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist” who “allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body” – phrases that indicate a legalistic, downplaying approach that alarms rather than reassures. Today’s words showed a lot more fire and desire to get on top of things – we’ll see whether Obama follows through with action. In the meantime, he went snorkelling.

Can you imagine the rage which would have been directed at Bush if he was goofing around while everyone was reeling from this wiener bomber's failed terrorism attempt, which wasn't stopped by the "system", but by passengers plus a bad case of projectile dysfunction?


I'm especially disappointed with Jan Nepalitano. I figured any chick that butch would be a little tougher at getting these guys, especially dudes obsessed with their phalli. It just goes to show you the danger of gay stereotypes.

David Carr on the "Obama Reality Show"

This NYT piece pulls no punches. My fave excerpts follow.

One of the downsides of having a president who is also Celebrity in Chief is that it creates the impression that the leader of the free world is part of a milieu that is more TMZ than C-SPAN. In an effort to remain connected to the social media world that was so much a part of his electoral victory, the Obama administration may be guilty of a very contemporary common offense: Oversharing.
.
.
.
The president can’t be blamed for a few knuckleheads trying to game their way into his presence, but his shared love of the camera leaves him vulnerable to suggestions that he is too busy appearing as the president and not busy enough being one. And we all know that television shows — reality or otherwise — can jump the shark.

So the Big O's falling approval ratings could be related to standard media ratings, i.e., everyone is sick of his show.

Compare that to Mr. Obama’s outing to Five Guys, where he is filmed taking burger orders from staff members — “You want fries?” — and then sets off with Mr. Williams in the limo, sitting with jacket off and feet up on the seats.

I like that the current president gets out of the bubble, that he enjoys a burger, and is willing to walk back into the White House with a greasy go-bag for the staff. I’m not sure being able to watch it all unfold is good for his presidency.

“When he ran, the Obamas were pitched as kind of a reality show to the public. We’d hear about his dinners with Michelle and we felt like we knew them,” said Michael Hirschorn, a former executive at VH1 who now runs Ish Entertainment, which produces reality programming. “But now that he is in office, there is a danger of the mystique going away. The problem with social media and constant video is that it flows like water and reduces everything to the same level. Not much of it is special, and it all becomes content, even if it’s the president.”

Yeah, well I'm not a TV producer or anything, but I think what the TV-consuming public wants to see now is a big fight with Michelle Obama screaming at the Prezz, stuff like "I own you, mother-f___er!! You wouldn't be here without me!" That might help jack up the ratings again. Let Michelle be Michelle, I say. Let it all hang out. They could call it The Obamas: Reloaded.


Carr concludes by a brief contrast with Jackie Kennedy's White House tour. It's just long enough to make his point; any longer and he'd risk damaging Michelle in the comparison.

Mrs. Kennedy may have been impossibly glamorous and done her share of image management, but she had a chaste relationship with the camera and the public.

“I want to live my life, not record it,” she said.

In other words, Jackie had some class. Nuff said.



Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Best Article on Palin-hatred so far

H/T to Susan B in a combox for linking to this incredibly insightful and brutally honest article by a former liberal. Excerpt from the setup material:

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

This part wonderfully sums up my own thoughts about the real abortion criminals:

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

Except the Kennedy's didn't wear ponytails, but that's okay. Then she connects it all to the insane hatred for Sarah Palin.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

You have got to read the entire thing. Robin owns the left in this piece, in which I believe every single word. She was sick and tired of getting fucked by these freaks.

Uhhhhh....well..... I mean.... uhhhhhh....