Obviously, we didn’t understand him the first time. This deserves to go viral.
You want some brie with that whine?
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
While doing a bit of research, I came across this little gem from Norman Thomas, six-time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party Of America:
“The old keenness of political discussion in the party has almost died, at least in so far as policy is concerned. (Criticism of administration is still allowed). A quotation from Stalin is a final answer to all argument. He receives the same sort of exaggerated veneration in public appearances, in the display of his picture, and in written references to him that is accorded to a Mussolini or a Hitler.” (Democracy versus Dictatorship pamphlet, 1937)
Substitute “Obama” for “Stalin” and remember that this is the man who tried to get the communists to join hands with his group.
All too soon, President Lame Duck will take to the airwaves in that annual tradition Americans know as the State of the Union address. As a service to you, dear readers, we thought we’d give you a sneak preview so you can use that time to do something more productive – like give your cat a bath.
“Our economy sucks.”
“It’s Bush’s fault.”
“I’ll be on the road campaigning all year. Except when I’m bypassing Congress to issue an unprecedented number of Executive Orders.”
“It’s Bush’s fault.”
“Rich people (except for me and Da Mooch, of course) are greedy bastards who owe you the fruits of their risks and labor.”
“Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a racist.”
“It’s the GOP’s fault.”
“I will be on the campaign trail all year.”
“We’re going to continue to encourage the Islamist extremists to play nice in the sandbox by giving them control over more of the Middle East.”
“Illegal immigrants are good and deserve everything we can give them. That’s why I appointed someone who used to head up La Raza to head up the Domestic Policy Council.”
“Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a racist.”
“It’s Bush’s fault.”
“Look at all the goodies you’re going to get from the new health care law this year. Doesn’t matter if we don’t have any money to pay for it. The Supreme Court is gonna see things my way.”
“I’m going to promise again that I’ll reduce the size of government because it’s a good way to get you to vote for me.”
“It’s the GOP’s fault.”
“I’ll be out campaigning all year while Congress does nothing.”
“It’s still Bush’s fault.”
End to great applause and a standing O.
Everyone makes mistakes. But when your life is the stuff of fiction created by a legend in your own mind and you misrepresent issues, if not flat-out lie about them, every time you open your mouth yet pridefully accept the mantle of Messiahnic Orator while shaking your scolding finger at those who so obviously know far, far less than you…well, some mistakes become just another example of why mama always admonished us to not spit too high.
Perhaps the stupidest thing yet to come out of the mouth of His Transparency to date was to mispronounce the word, “corpsman” at this year’s National Prayer Breakfast. Saying it as if it were two words, “corpse man”, would be funny if it wasn’t said by the Commander in Chief of the United States military. Truth is that it’s just another pathetic demonstration of both Obama’s ignorance and his disdainful disrespect for the military.
It also hints at those ever-popular Freudian slips; what with all the destruction this naked Emperor is wreaking on our beloved country, calling to mind the calls to “bring out your dead!” that rang through cobbled streets during the Middle Ages.
The rest of us had better keep praying.
Why does it come as no surprise that the final version of health care “reform” legislation is going to be prepared by only Democrats? More specifically, in a revolting little three-way behind closed doors by that nauseatingly loathesome, unholy trinity of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
WASHINGTON — House and Senate Democrats intend to bypass traditional procedures when they negotiate a final compromise on health care legislation, officials said Monday, a move that will exclude Republican lawmakers and reduce their ability to delay or force politically troubling votes in both houses.
The unofficial timetable calls for final passage of the measure to remake the nation’s health care system by the time President Obama delivers his State of the Union address, probably in early February.
Democratic aides said the final compromise talks would essentially be a three-way negotiation involving top Democrats in the House and Senate and the White House, a structure that gives unusual latitude to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
These officials said there are no plans to appoint a formal House-Senate conference committee, the method Congress most often uses to reconcile differing bills. Under that customary format, a committee chairman is appointed to preside, and other senior lawmakers from both parties and houses participate in typically perfunctory public meetings while the meaningful negotiations occur behind closed doors.
It’s going to be another headlong rush into unconstitutional, crushing ruin.
Bypassing a formal conference committee enables Democrats to omit time-consuming procedural steps in the Senate and prevents Republicans from trying to delay the final negotiations.
Under Senate rules, three separate votes are required before negotiators for the two houses may hold a formal meeting. While the three normally are agreed to within seconds, each may be filibustered, and Democrats would then have to produce 60 votes to cut off debate.
Additionally, Republicans would have the right to demand votes on nonbinding proposals once negotiators for the two houses were appointed. That could, in turn, require Democrats to vote on political controversies such as wiping out the legislation’s proposed cuts in Medicare, the type of issue that could easily be turned into attack ads in next fall’s campaign.
Congress plans no formal sessions until Jan. 19, but Pelosi intends to meet this week with key committee chairmen and other leaders, and a separate meeting is also planned for members of the rank and file.
There are no words to describe the disgust I feel for the Democratic party this evening. But there are two words that may put a big monkey wrench in their plans.
Though the ADD media did little more than their usual hit & run on recent events in Honduras before glomming onto more important things like the death of Michael Jackson, Accuracy In Media has posted a detailed report that connects some rather chilling dots between the U.N., President Obama, and Hugo Chavez, and poses legitimate questions of their real intentions.
This also begs the question of Obama’s loyalty to the United States, for interference in the fate of Honduras appears to also be tied to affairs in Iran.
The United Nations on Thursday begins a debate over a new U.N. military doctrine called the “Responsibility to Protect,” which would authorize the world organization to be used as cover to intervene in the sovereign affairs of a nation state, supposedly to protect the people of a country against their own government. The first target could be anti-communist Honduras.
In an ominous development, blogger Jason Poblete, an astute observer of Latin American affairs with excellent sources, reports that “The Obama Administration is considering a United Nations Security Council Resolution against the constitutional government of Honduras.” If true, anticipated U.N. sanctions against Honduras could be followed by the world organization being used as cover for outside forces to invade Honduras and reinstate Zelaya.
Zelaya flew from Costa Rica, where he was deported, to U.N. headquarters in New York, where D’Escoto, who is also a Communist Catholic Priest from Nicaragua, greeted him as a comrade. Since the crisis began and the U.N. voted to have him reinstated, the Obama Administration has been trying to figure out a way to get him back into power. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias recently hosted some negotiations to try to resolve the dispute but they appear to be going nowhere.
The U.N. may be the logical next step, if Zelaya’s allies in the region don’t act precipitously on their own and intervene. Chavez has already threatened to invade Honduras to put Zelaya back in power.
On July 13, the State Department spokesman confirmed that Chavez had called Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon to “discuss the current situation in Honduras and the ongoing negotiations mediated by Costa Rica’s President Oscar Arias.” The confirmation followed news of Chavez boasting about the telephone call on Venezuelan state TV.
This tends to confirm what former Marxist SDS radical Tom Hayden, leader of “Progressives for Obama,” has written about the Obama-Chavez relationship. Based on his own inside sources of information, Hayden said that he thinks Obama and Chavez are working together on Honduras and have an “understanding,” which he even describes as “collaboration.” The call Chavez made to Shannon suggests that Chavez is calling the shots.
Ultimately, according to a very detailed report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, this would benefit Iran, a terrorist state developing nuclear weapons which is developing a vast network throughout Latin America. A recent report from the organization examines the deep Iranian connections to Venezuela as well as Bolivia.
We here continue to stand by the people of Honduras and their upholding of their constitution. It is humiliating that our President refuses to do the same.
It is also a dangerous walk on a very thin line. Article III, section 3 of the United States Constitution states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
…the Hayden article strongly suggests that the Obama policy is not the result of incompetence or inexperience but is deliberate in nature.
Hayden, once a famous anti-Vietnam War protester in his own right and former official of the Marxist Students for a Democratic Society, claims that “something profoundly new began developing between Obama and Chavez at the hemispheric conference in April in Trinidad.
According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano. What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present.
In December 2007 his [Chavez’s] regime hosted a conference devoted to staging a communist revolution in the United States. The panel discussion on “United States: A possible revolution” was described as the central event at the third Venezuela International Book Fair.
According to an article in The Militant, the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, the forum included presentations by “Mary-Alice Waters, a member of the Socialist Workers Party National Committee and president of Pathfinder Press; Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American lawyer and author of The Chávez Code; Chris Carlson, a contributor to the venezuelanalysis.com website; and Tufara Waller, cultural program coordinator of the Highlander Center in Tennessee.”
Other panelists were identified as “Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela’s ambassador to the United States; former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill; August Nimtz, a University of Minnesota political science professor; William Blum, an author who has written a number of books opposing U.S. foreign policy; ex-Maryknoll priest Charles Hardy; and Dada Maheshvarananda, yoga instructor and founder of the Prout Institute.”
The communist paper reported that, before there could be a revolution in the United States, Marxist forces would have to take control of Latin America. “Another idea frequently expressed by speakers from the floor and by a few panelists was that ‘change has to come from the South,'” referring to Latin America, the paper said.
A disturbing report is coming out of Jerusalem today. Certainly Israel has every right to pay close attention to the goings-on in Iran and in this particular story one sees why.
A deliberately anonymous member of Iran’s paramilitary Basiji militia has spoken out about his role in the recent election protests. But even more disturbing than his perspective of the abuses is his sharing earlier experiences with the group. Experiences which, from his account, appear to have been commonplace.
In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin, he explained. Therefore a “wedding” ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard – essentially raped by her “husband.”
When questioned about expressing regret for his participation in this heinous abuse, he said “I could tell that the girls were more afraid of their ‘wedding’ night than of the execution that awaited them in the morning. And they would always fight back, so we would have to put sleeping pills in their food. By morning the girls would have an empty expression; it seemed like they were ready or wanted to die.
“I remember hearing them cry and scream after [the rape] was over,” the Basiji member said. “I will never forget how this one girl clawed at her own face and neck with her finger nails afterwards. She had deep scratches all over her.”
As the golden sun melts in the cool, clear blue summer evening sky and the hush of evening at last begins to override today’s activities, it is easy to imagine that such things cannot happen here. But there is a fine line between deliberately blind obsession and zealotry, and when that line is crossed by enough people it doesn’t take much for one of the few evils in this world – egotistical power mongers – to sweep away individual rights in favor of their tyrannistic agenda.
We in America think ourselves too “civilized”, perhaps, to find ourselves enslaved as are the Iranian people. We are far too clever and far too sure of our Constitutional right to freedom to fall victim through such primitive means as force and bloodshed. It is this smugness, this surety, however, that is our greatest danger for it stands to be our collective undoing. It explains why someone with absolutely no legitimate experience, a background that is questionable at best, and decidedly immoral if not outright criminals for friends now sits in the Oval Office. Deliberate blindness combined with ears eager to listen to soaring cadences but unwilling or unable to hear the words, the lies, became an obsession that has created real and imminent threats to our very – and very wonderful – way of life. In the same way that the Basiji twist the laws of the Islamic Republic to suit the government’s needs, so, too, do we see such twists of American law as the Obama administration takes over car companies, funnels money to organizations like Goldman Sachs and ACORN, appoints a science “czar” who supports what basically amounts to eugenics, and pushes economically unsustainable ideas like cap & trade and health care (-less) reform.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Often such reactions are unforeseen consequences. As the government expands exponentially under the spurs and whips of the Obama administration, so constrict our individual freedoms, much as a noose tightens around the neck of the prisoner only moments from execution. Once our most basic freedoms have been stripped from us by virtue of a majority zealotness, the day when the government feels empowered and emboldened enough to use force against American citizens won’t be far behind. And it will bring with it such horrors as are being documented today in Iran.
I find no coincidence in Barack Obama’s support of Ahmadinejad. Nor anything the least acceptable in his cozying up to Chavez or in his continuing dismissal of the people of Honduras and their constitution. As the truth of the literal and figurative cost of Obama’s big plans for “reform” become more and more clear and his popularity plummets inversely, his words become more and more mean and so we begin to see the cracks in the mask. Behind it is a man who would be king but one who lacks even the most rudimentary understanding or legitimate sense of noblesse oblige. Sacrifice is not a part of his nature, only the overwhelming need for control.
And all I can think is, “I hope he fails”.
Is no one immune from the ratings game?
Michael Jackson died today and while it’s certainly a momentous event in the history of pop music, is it really so newsworthy that every media outlet is now devoting hours and hours of air time to blather on about it? Even FOX News is preempting Bill O’Reilly’s show tonight to air a hastily-patched-together special.
I find this ironic and I find it sad. And, somehow, it’s almost like a perfect storm. Ed McMahon died Tuesday. This morning Farah Fawcett lost her long fight with cancer. And by the East Coast prime time news hour Michael Jackson is unexpectedly pronounced dead in Los Angeles.
And no one can talk about anything else.
Conservatives, in particular, want to cling to their Bibles and too-often beat others over the head with their beloved book yet it is the Bible that says to “let the dead bury their dead”. I won’t deny that the death of a pop icon is sad but am I the only one remembering that Michael Jackson was also of questionable morals? Frankly, this is a time when there are truly important matters at hand that must be properly addressed. The citizens of Iran are dying in their streets for fairness and freedoms, North Korea is moving nuclear weapons material across the seas and, most frightening of all, the Waxman-Markley energy bill – cap & tax – the biggest destruction of American life we have yet to see in our lifetimes – is going up in the House tomorrow for a floor vote.
I imagine that Obama and his Congressional cohorts are doing happy hula dances at tonight’s White House luau to celebrate their good fortune at this distraction. A shindig paid for by us, by the way, but to which we, the American taxpayer, are not, of course, invited.
There’s word getting out onto the street that GE has not only been rabidly slobbering all over President Obama in order to further its executives’ fortunes by pushing for cap & trade, but that they are flexing their corporate muscle to spank journalists of varying stripes who attempt to report facts instead of pushing the pablum-laced, White House-contrived fiction. Particularly when those facts put GE and its subsidiaries in a less-than-favorable light.
The latest tidbit involves Jeffrey Immelt and Jeff Zucker orchestrating a GE boycott of their news subsidiaries’ rival media outlet Nielsen after a Nielsen-owned The Hollywood Reporter journalist wrote a much-publicized story about the rather lively GE shareholder meeting in April. That well-attended Orlando, Florida GE shareholder meeting where many people wanted to know whether or not Immelt actually told GE’s news operations (e.g. MSNBC) to be “less critical” of President Obama and his administration.
Of course Hollywood lives and dies on both fiction and gossip, however, when one considers the bias of GE’s news outlets towards the current administration, and the fact that the FOXNews staff of the Bill O’Reilly show is now investigating GE’s possible involvement in supplying weapons material to Iran, well…it doesn’t take a healthy dose of imagination to wonder whether this is yet another case where truth is stranger than fiction.
Washington, D.C. seems to be taking its cue from Hollywood because the May unemployment numbers were preceded by quite a lot of gladhanding that the numbers were down. Truth is that the May unemployment numbers are higher than those well-spun previews and are, in fact, higher than if we’d done nothing at all to “stimulate” the economy. Which is even higher still than the numbers projected by the administration.
Last thought is of the word that must have finally given nightmares to the Romanovs. That word is “czars”. The Republic of the United States of America now has more and more czars every day; popping up faster than Nancy Pelosi during an Obama campaign speech, each one being given the helm of what used to be considered private or individual state business. Not only is the word itself and its connections to monarchy, imperialism, and tyranny disturbing, that it is manifesting in a free, democratic Republic should sound an alarm to even the most addicted Kool-Aid drinkers. No one elects them, they are hand-picked by and accountable to no one but Barack Hussein Obama. Rather his very own personal court lackies; in reality more government employees on the taxpayer dole with absolutely no incentive to safeguard citizen interests or the Constitution. It is starting to sound beyond ridiculous – regulatory czar, pay czar, energy czar, car czar, health care czar, intelligence czar, urban affairs czar, drug affairs czar, border czar, even a Great Lakes czar.
Does this make President Obama the czar czar?
Such is the stuff of which revolutions are made.
On the breakfast menu this morning: waffles.
President Obama’s remarks yesterday at a Rio Rancho, New Mexico townhall meeting about credit card reform:
“I just want to make a little commentary about the media here, if you don’t mind. When Congress included in last year’s budget a whole bunch of earmarks, you remember there was a week worth of stories about how terrible these earmarks were,” the president recounted. “You remember this…a week’s worth of stories: ‘Oh, these earmarks, this is what’s blowing up the deficit, this is terrible,’ blah, blah, blah. And yet, as I said before, that was less than 1 percent of that entire budget that had been signed. When we find $17 billion worth of cuts in programs, what do the same folks say? They say, ‘Oh, that’s nothing.’…That’s not significant. That’s not important.’
“Well, you can’t have it both ways. If those earmarks were important, then this money is important, too.”
President Obama’s remarks in March upon signing the pork-filled 2009 Omnibus spending bill (with roughly 9,000 earmarks totaling nearly $8 billion):
“I am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it is necessary for the ongoing functions of government. But I also view this as a departure point for more far-reaching change.”
President Obama’s remarks during the 3rd presidential debate in Hempstead, New York:
“Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That’s one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There’s no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it’s not going to solve the problem. ”
President Obama’s remarks about his $3.5 trillion budget proposal:
“The 121 budget cuts we are announcing today will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. And even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money.”
A comment about President Obama’s $3.5 trillion budget proposal by an administration official:
“$17 billion dollars, I think, to anyone’s accounting, is a significant amount of money. Again, that’s in one year alone.”
It makes sense that Obama keeps the emphasis on the red herring of just what constitutes “significant” and “important”. Because if people understood what is behind the number, they’d see that all this talk of “change” continues to be nothing more than keeping the country on the same, well-worn and dangerous path we’ve been on for years.
As the Wall Street Journal points out:
The added cost of new programs detailed in Mr. Obama’s budget appendix will swamp the $17 billion of potential savings anticipated from eliminating or cutting back 121 programs, enumerated in a separate document.
The White House on Monday will release a revised deficit projection to take into account technical and economic changes that will almost certainly widen its February forecasts of a record deficit of $1.8 trillion for fiscal 2009, and $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that begins in October.
Even if the president could eliminate the entire defense budget, along with domestic discretionary programs in 2009, the $1.3 trillion of savings would still leave a $445 billion budget deficit.
Well, President Obama, if we can’t “have it both ways”, then neither can you. And, by the way, yes, I DO mind your little ongoing commentaries about the media. It is your job to uphold the Constitution and it is the media’s job to report on how you do or do not do it. If you don’t like the fact your progressivism and your lying results in criticism, you’ve no one to blame but yourself.
Pass the syrup, please.