Thursday, May 28, 2009

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Ultimate Flip-Flopper!

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the flip-floppin', pseudo-Republican, veritable Democrat governor of California, decided to take a jab at Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday, so I've decided to return the favor and post some videos in honor of the Governator.

Schwarzenegger, during the presidential campaign, praised Obama's flip-flops. "I think it is great!" he exclaimed. He also suggested that he'd be willing to serve in Obama's cabinet, if asked to do so. "I'm alway ready to help in any way I can... I'd take his call now and I'd take his call if he [is elected] President, any time!":



Schwarzenegger Mocks Obama at a McCain campaign rally:



The Governator extolls the president's courageous leadership, calling Obama's economic stimulus package, "the greatest package!":



Schwarzenegger derides single-payer and government-run healthcare:



The Governator speaks out in favor of Universal Healthcare [please excuse the graphics]:



Schwarzenegger parody:

A Thanksgiving message from the Governator:



Mitt Romneys son, Matt, employs a few Schwarzenegger sound bites to prank call his dad while hes on the campaign trail. "Let's help Mitt Romney relax a little bit," says Matt:



The End.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Biden Mocks Obama! - Teleprompter Joke

I noticed that some recent visitors of this blog arrived at a particular post of mine after doing a Google search on the words 'Biden Mocks Obama'. However, that particular post was probably not the object of their quest. But I think I found what they were looking for:

Vice President Biden delivered a speech at the Air Force Academy in Colorado on Wednesday. In the middle of the speech, the teleprompter had fallen down due to heavy winds, prompting the Vice President to crack a joke about the "windy air" of Colorado and President Obama's use of the teleprompter:



I suppose the Vice President was getting in his retribution for all the ridicule and scorn that the President has heaped upon him the past several months....

Release the Rashid Khalidi Video now!

President Obama recently backtracked on a promise he had made to release photos showing alleged abuse of terrorist detainees, saying the release of the photos would endanger US troops abroad.

The LA Times promptly criticized the president's decision and called on him to release the photos.

"The Obama administration is wrong in withholding the pictures," the Times wrote, "...Let's not forget Obama's promise, on his second day in office, to 'hold myself as president to a new standard of openness'."

However, the Times' call for "openness" is a bit paradoxical to say the least, considering the following:

During the presidential campaign, the LA Times refused to post a videotape it had obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with former Arafat adviser, Rashid Khalidi. Former Weather underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were also in attendance. Several speakers at the event uttered highly inflammatory remarks about Israel, including one speaker who compared Israeli settlers to Osama bin Laden.

Other unconfirmed sources claim that Obama himself had uttered highly inflammatory remarks about Israel.

"It would be really controversial if [the videotape] got out," the source said. "Tha'ts why [the LA Times] will not even let a transcript get out."

Nevertheless, regardless of whether the latter allegation is true or not, the Times clearly suppressed the videotape, knowing that posting it would very likely impact Obama's presidential campaign.

No one but the LA Times and those who attended the dinner know the full scope of what was said at the event, which is why the McCain campaign and others pleaded with the Times to release the videotape. But the Times, rather than fulfill its journalistic obligation, chose instead to protect Obama in order to ensure him a smooth path to the presidency.

But unlike the detainee photos, releasing the Khalidi video would not endanger anyone [although it may hurt the president politically]. Hence, if the Times believes, that in the spirit of "openness", Obama should release the detainee photos, then the Times should also release the Khalidi video, in the spirit of "openness" and in the spirit of not being hypocritical.

Thus, I hereby call on the LA Times to release the Khalidi videotape now - in the spirit of "openness" and in the spirit of being true to one's purported convictions!

H/T - Todd Garrick

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Gen. Casey: US combat troops to remain in Iraq for 10 years

"I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades [from Iraq] over the next 18 months... Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."
Barack Obama addressing US troops at Camp Lejeune - Feb. 2009

From the AP - May 26, 2009:
The Pentagon is prepared to leave fighting forces in Iraq for as long as a decade despite an agreement between the United States and Iraq that would bring all American troops home by 2012, the top U.S. Army officer said Tuesday.

Gen. George Casey, the Army chief of staff, said the world remains dangerous and unpredictable, and the Pentagon must plan for extended U.S. combat and stability operations in two wars...

He said his planning envisions combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade as part of a sustained U.S. commitment to fighting extremism and terrorism in the Middle East...

Casey said... the military was preparing to have a fighting force deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come...

This scenario, he said, must take into account that "we're going to have 10 Army and Marine units deployed for a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

Chryslergate?

Rush Limbaugh popped the following question last week. The Chrysler corporation recently announced it was shutting down over 700 car dealerships. But many of these dealerships were doing quite well. So why would Chrysler close down highly profitable dealerships?

From RushLimbaugh.com:
Rush: ...I could only hazard a guess here. Do you think that the Obama administration -- "working with" Chrysler, heh, heh, heh; working with the automobile manufacturers, working with the dealers... are targeting dealerships that happen to be run and owned by Republicans? I don't know this.

I'm being led to speculate because Mr. Anderer [a successful Long Island, New York, Chrysler dealer] says he doesn't know why his high-performing dealership was shut down, and he can't find a formula. He can't find a coherent plan to explain why they're shutting down successful dealerships in the Chrysler network...
Rush was only speculating at the time, but according to preliminary research done by several Conservative bloggers, it looks like the overwhelming majority of car dealerships slated for closure are indeed GOP contributors or have donated to Obama's rivals in the democratic primary.

Director Blue expounds on this; Gateway Pundit as well. Check out these 2 blogs for more details.

On May 20, after reviewing the first 5 pages of the Chrysler closings report, the CDCDI blog came up with the following numbers:
During the 2004 Presidential Election, the dealers gave:

$10,500 to President Bush
$1,000 to General Wesley Clark (D)
$500 to Rep. Dick Gephardt (D).

During the 2008 Presidential Election, they gave:

$7,150 to John McCain
$2,300 to Gov. Mitt Romney
$500 to Gov. Mike Huckabee
$1,950 to Sen. Hillary Clinton
$0 to Pres. Obama

Also, since the 2004 Election cycle, the dealers analyzed so far gave:

$113,400 to the RNC and the State Republican Parties
$1,000 to the State Democratic Parties (Arkansas Democrat Party).
And on May 23, after analyzing 3/4 of the dealership closings, CDCDI'S findings reveals once again that the overwhelming majority of dealerships forced to shut down were indeed owned by GOP contributors. Click here for the full list.

Shall we call this latest round of thuggery "Chryslergate"? Why not.

But have no fear Obamalites, leave it to the master prevaricator to extract himself from this mess. He always does........

P.S. There are some who will claim that the overwhelming majority of affluent Americans are Republicans and thus, the majority of car dealers, are likely to be Republicans too. But according to a Nov. 2007 study conducted by the Heritage foundation, "more than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats. This new political demography holds true in the House of Representatives" too. What's more, according to Newsweek Magazine, Americans "making $200,000 or more (6 percent of the electorate) voted for Obama 52-46, while McCain won the merely well-off - $100,000 to $150,000 - by a 51-48 margin and $150,000 to $200,000 by a 50-48 margin). "

'The Axis of Virtue', a Dream Come True!

Intelligence reports coming out of Israel suggest that Venezuela has been supplying Iran with uranium and that Tehran has been setting up Hezbollah terror cells in north Venezuela.

Now, I haven't the foggiest notion who's supplying uranium to Iran, but if Venezuela is indeed the culprit, it really shouldn't be much of a concern to us. On the contrary, we now have a president who's expressed a genuine interest in negotiating with both the leaders of Iran and Venezuela. The president already had an amiable, albeit, brief chat with Hugo Chavez several weeks ago. Thus, the ice has already been broken, at least with regards to Venezuela.

The rest is easy as pie.

Obama need only to meet with Hugo Chavez and appeal to him to stop supplying uranium to Iran. Then he just needs to sit down with Mr. Ahmadinejad and implore him not to accept any more uranium from Mr. Chavez. That's all, it's really quite simple! Perhaps Obama could even borrow a page from Mr. Chavez' playbook and present Mr. Ahmadinejad with a signed copy of his best selling book, The Audacity of Hope. For ultimately, it is these kind of small but significant gestures that have the power to create affectionate and enduring relationships with rogue leaders.

Admitedly, just a few short months ago this all would have been but a chimerical and fanciful illusion. But now, with Obama at the helm, there's a certain sense of audacity and a feeling of hope in the air. What began many years ago as a simple dream from a father has now evolved into reality and has become a vehicle of change that is steadily transforming our past relationships with rogue tyrants.

What's more, if Kim Jong-il ever decides to meet with the president, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea could ultimately become a veritable Axis of Virtue!... How great is that!

Indeed, just a few short months ago this all would have been but an absurd fantasy. But as the Wonder of Obama begins to unfold before our very eyes, it is clear that the Free World has never been safer than it is right now....

Friday, May 22, 2009

"Yes We Can", the Sweet Sound of "Change"!

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday lashed out at his challengers in the upcoming Iranian presidential elections for facilitating a policy of "detente" with the West.

"The previous government (of Mohammad Khatami) which followed a detente policy de facto eradicated the goals of the nation and intended to accept a status which others (West) had planned to impose on us," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad blamed his predecessor for having signed what he called the "disgraceful accord" in 2003 in Tehran with foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, which saw Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear work.

"The nuclear accord at that time was a symbol of helplessness and compromise - the government at that time used detente as pretext for suspending all nuclear works for making our enemies more demanding," Ahmadinejad said.

"Fortunately the people returned to their revolutionary goals and chose the slogan of 'WE CAN' which eventually led to a change in the country's politics." he added.
Similarly, it was the slogan "YES WE CAN", which eventually led to a change in US politics, creating a policy of detente with the "revolutionary" and tyrannical leader of Iran......

"WE CAN, YES WE CAN!" HIP HIP HOORAY!

Related posts:
Ahmadinejad Admits Iran is Developing nuclear weapons, The Facade has been shattered

Ahmadinejad: "Appeasement will only Embolden the Enemy!" - The West

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Ahmadinejad: Appeasement will only Embolden the Enemy!

Yep, you read the post-title correctly!

Barack Obama can't seem to comprehend that point, but the Iranian President understands quite well that you can't appease the enemy or make compromises with them:
"Unfortunately, today there are some people who think that compromise with enemies will remove threats," Ahmadinejad said in a speech [on Wednesday], "but experience has shown that whenever Iran softens its stance the enemies are emboldened."
Winston Churchill couldn't have expressed himself more eloquently than that.

A short note to Barack Obama:

Mr. President, you really need to sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and chat with him for a while. The Iranian President can teach you a few lessons about compromises, appeasement and life in general. Trust me, you'll learn something from him. I'll even pay your airfare......

Ahmadinejad Admits Iran is Developing nuclear weapons, The Facade has been shattered

From the AP:
Iran's hard-line president criticized as "disgraceful" a 2003 deal his predecessor reached with Europe to freeze the country's nuclear program, saying his own decision to stand up to the West restored Iran's dignity.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been touting Iran's nuclear achievements ahead of the June presidential election, hoping to offset criticism from his opponents that he has spent too much time slamming the West and not enough focused on the country's faltering economy.
Well, well, well, Americans have been criticizing Obama for spending too much time slamming Dick Cheney and the Bush administration, rather than focusing on America's problems [see the recent survey at the end of my previous post], and lo and behold, Obama's Iranian counterpart is receiving the exact same criticism from his fellow countrymen. Heh....
Former President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who favors 'improving ties with the West', struck a deal with Britain, France and Germany in October 2003 to suspend Iran's uranium enrichment program and give the U.N. nuclear watchdog unrestricted access to the country's nuclear facilities.
Clarification: The Mullahs suspended their uranium enrichment program in October of 2003, not because they wanted "to improve ties with the West", but because the US invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 [7 months earlier] had them shaking in their boots.
The deal, which was signed at Sa'adabad Palace in Tehran, was aimed at easing Western fears that Iran was seeking to build nuclear weapons...

"Enemies have designed colonial policies. When they drew up the disgraceful agreement in their Sa'adabad meeting, they considered the Iranian nation finished," Ahmadinejad was quoted by his Web site as telling a group of Iranians on Wednesday in Semnan, 125 miles east of Tehran.

Iran tested a new missile in Semnan on Wednesday capable of striking Israel, U.S. Mideast bases and parts of Europe, a launch that also burnished Ahmadinejad's hard-line reputation ahead of the June 12 election.

Khatami actually reversed the nuclear freeze and resumed uranium reprocessing activities in August 2005, shortly before Ahmadinejad took office. He acted in response to international demands to permanently halt Iran's nuclear program.
Wrong! Khatami's reversal had nothing to do with international demands, but rather he took notice of how the Dems were ganging up on President Bush, criticizing him for going to war with Iraq and labeling him a warmonger. Consequently, Khatami realized he could now resume full speed ahead with his nuclear program, for the Democrats in congress were now watching his back.
Ahmadinejad said his resistance to caving in to international pressure led to Iran mastering the enrichment process. He said Iran's nuclear abilities prevented the U.S. from invading the country after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But I thought Iran was only processing low-grade uranium to produce alternative energy! How could Iran's nuclear abilities prevent the U.S. from invading Iran, if it wasn't developing weapons-grade uranium?

Hmmm......

Yes, I know, the Obamalites will respond to this argument, claiming that even if the Iranians were developing nuclear weapons, they don't have them yet, so this must have been mere rhetoric on Ahmadinejad's part.

Perhaps, but one thing seems pretty clear: Ahmadinejad spilled the beans and admitted Iran was indeed developing nuclear weapons, otherwise, its nuclear cabilities could not have possibly prevented the U.S. from invading Iran, as Ahmadinejad had suggested.

So next time the Iranian President insists his country's nuclear program is solely designed for energy purposes, we have his own admission clearly proving otherwise. Which means Ahmadinejad has dropped his facade once-and-for-all. The fake, phony ElBaradei and his IAEA minions can go home now, we really don't need them anymore. [Not that we ever really needed them in the first place.]
The Obama administration has stepped up diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to change its behavior but has received a mixed response from Ahmadinejad...
Mixed response?!! You can't "clench" your fist any tighter than that!

Heck! this wasn't merely fist-clenching! Ahmadinejad gave Obama "the finger", BIG TIME!

P.S. If you haven't seen the following post already, check out what the Iranian President has to say about appeasement and about "compromising with the enemy". A lesson for Obama, indeed. Click here.

Cheney's Poll Numbers are on the rise, Americans want Obama to 'man up' and to 'stop blaming Bush'

From CNN's Political Ticker:
The same day Dick Cheney delivered a major speech on the battle against terrorism, a new national poll suggests that favorable opinions of the former vice president are on the rise...[Cheney's numbers are up eight points] from January when he left office.

In the past two months the former vice president has become a frequent critic of the new Administration in numerous national media interviews.
But of course, CNN couldn't stomach all of that, so they added this spin:
“Is Cheney’s uptick due to his visibility as one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration? Almost certainly not,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.”
Well, if being an outspoken critic of the administration isn't what lifted up Cheney's poll numbers, might it be that Americans simply don't trust Obama on Gitmo and other security issues, and that's why Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush's poll numbers are on the rise?

It might... And, if that is indeed the case, it stands to reason that Cheney's criticism of Obama is helping Americans understand just how perilous Obama's positions are - on Gitmo etc.

On the flip side, Obama's criticism of both Cheney and Bush appears to be having the opposite effect.

According to a recent survey conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp., "more than 3-to-1 Americans think it is time for the Obama administration to start taking responsibility (64 percent) instead of continuing to blame the Bush administration for mistakes (21 percent)."

Ah yes, "responsibility", but it's much easier to "Blame Bush", isn't it?.......

Mosque Members Refused to assist bombing suspect because "they didn't want more legal trouble"

Get a load of this one!

The assistant imam of a Newburgh mosque, Hamin Rashada, said that one of the men suspected of plotting to bomb targets in the US, Mr. Laguerre Payen, "had been going around" the last few days "asking people where he could gain access to heavy weapons and a dependable driver."
According to Rashada, the people did not help him because they didn't want more legal trouble. He found all this out when he asked around today and yesterday after hearing of the arrests, he said.
They didn't help him because "they didn't want more legal trouble."

Heh. How nice of them!

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Gibbs 'Gitmo' Reply a bit "Hasty" - Flip-Flop

From the White House press briefing - May 20 - H/T - Gateway Pundit:
QUESTION: This is a President who has not been afraid to admit that he made a mistake in the past when he made one. If you say Congress deserves a plan [concerning the closing of Gitmo] before we ask them for resources [$$$], was it a mistake to ask for the resources before you give them a plan?

ROBERT GIBBS: ...I think [the president will] say this tomorrow -- that we've made some hasty decisions that are now going to take some time to unwind. And closing Guantanamo Bay obviously is one of those decisions.
Later on, a reporter asks Gibbs a follow up question, requesting a clarification on his previous reply:

Get a load of this exchange!:
Q: You said hasty -- you talked about hasty decisions tomorrow, that it's going to take some time to unwind. Are you talking about the President's hasty decisions or the previous administration's hasty decision as it regards Guantanamo?

GIBBS: No, no, no, I'm sorry, let me be -- good question. My boss might want to know the answer to that. (Laughter.) No, no, I'm discussing decisions that were made in the previous administration --

Q: You were not referring to the executive order --

GIBBS: No, no, no --

Q: -- as a hasty decision.

GIBBS: No.

Q: Absolutely not?

GIBBS: Thank you for letting me clarify that before I go see the boss later this afternoon....

GIBBS: You just saved us a series of phone calls. Let me explain a little bit of what I meant by that....
Gibbs goes on and on and on. But, ultimately he fibbed on that one, or perhaps he was only kidding. Who knows....... But I think Gibbs made an egregious error in responding so "hastily" to the original question. He should have allowed himself "some time to unwind" before giving his reply - which would have "saved him a lot of phone calls" and shielded him from his boss' wrath......

Update: The aforementioned flip-flop was noted by David Paul Kuhn over at Real Clear Politics. Gateway Pundit - who I cited earlier - linked to Kuhn's post, but did not mention the flip-flop. I did not see Mr. Kuhn's post till now and only took notice of Gibbs' reversal because I had perused the complete White House briefing. But if it's any consolation to Mr. Kuhn: I offer him a somewhat belated hat tip.

ACORN Logo on 'Obama Dollar Bill'?











From Berman Post - H/T - Gateway Pundit:
Walking through Union Square (NYC) today, I noticed something. On the 'Obama 44 dollar bill', instead of the United States Treasury Seal, they put the ACORN logo. I can understand wanting to put something more exciting on the Treasury Seal, and thinking it is best to put something else there, just to make extra sure no one thinks it is any sort of legal currency. Still, the ACORN logo?














Oh well, considering Obama dolled out about $800,000 to ACORN to register voters during the presidential campaign, it seems only natural to place the ACORN logo on Obama's dollar bill......

Obama's Proposed Mileage Standards Would Kill More Americans than Iraq War

From CNS News - H/T - Gateway Pundit:
The Obama administration’s proposed mileage standards that will be announced today may kill more Americans at a faster rate than the Iraq War — his signature issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Obama’s standards will require automakers to meet a 35 miles-per-gallon standard by 2016 — four years earlier than the same standard imposed by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007. As discussed in my new book “Green Hell,” the only way for carmakers to meet these standards is to make smaller, lighter and deadlier cars.

The National Academy of Sciences has linked mileage standards with about 2,000 deaths per year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars increases annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715. In contrast in the more than six years since the Iraq war began, there have been 4,296 deaths among American military personnel...
Read the rest.

Will Limbaugh be forced to register as an Independent?

Conservative radio host, Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday tendered his resignation as "titular head of the Republican Party."

Limbaugh told his audience that he'd been anointed head of the GOP against his will "by the mainstream media and the Obama White House" - not by the GOP. The popular Conservative icon asserted that this was not a title he had sought, but because so many people believe he is the "titular head" of the GOP, he was tendering his resignation. "No mas, no mas," he proclaimed, "no more, no more, I quit!"

Limbaugh went on to say, tongue in cheek, that "there frankly is someone far more qualified... and more in tune with today's republican party than I, to be not only its titular head, but it's real head. And that would be General Colin Powell. So I now pass the the baton to General Colin Powell...."

Unfortunately, when many, who are seen as emblematic of the GOP, are spurning creationism, adapting moderate positions on abortion and embracing other Liberal ideologies, it may be just the right time for Limbaugh to resign.
"I’d accept legal abortion in the very, very early stages of pregnancy, before the embryo can feel pain..."
That's nice of you....... But what about the old adage, "no pain, no gain?" Hmmm?

But one question still remains: Will Limbaugh ultimately be forced to part ways with his party altogether and register as an independent?

With the winds blowing left inside the GOP, you just never know....

More verbal exchanges between Limbaugh and Powell, here.

A Clarion Call: "No More Caricatures! Both Sides Must Stop Demonizing Each Other!"

Breaking News from the Carbolic Smoke Ball! Read the shocking story HERE!

Background material....


Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Dowd & Pelosi, Birds of a Feather?

From the Huffington Post:
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, in an email to the Huffington Post, admits that a paragraph in her Sunday column was lifted from Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall's blog last Thursday. Dowd claims that she never read his blog last week, but was told the line by a friend of hers.
Likewise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi - during a News Conference on May 14 - defended herself against allegations she had been briefed about the CIA's waterboarding program, saying she had never been briefed about the program and had only heard about it from others who'd been briefed about it:
"My assistant told me that the committee had been briefed [about waterboarding]... but I did not [personally] get the briefing......"
Dowd & Pelosi, 'birds of a feather'?

Monday, May 18, 2009

Obama Snubs Jim Gibbons

From the Las Vegas Sun:

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons released the following news release on Monday:

The Office of Governor Jim Gibbons was notified today that President Barack Obama has refused to meet with the Governor and key business leaders from Nevada.

Governor Gibbons requested the meeting in a letter to President Obama so the President could address statements he made that were critical to Nevada and have caused economic damage to convention business and tourism business in the Silver State.

Earlier this year, the President told an audience in Elkhart, Indiana, “You can’t get corporate jets. You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime.” That quote was seen by many as an insult to Las Vegas and as a message to companies across the Nation to stay away from Las Vegas for corporate meetings and conventions.

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled. These cancelled events translate into 111,800 guests in Las Vegas and over 250,000 “room-nights”. The cancelled conventions and meetings have cost the Las Vegas economy over $100-million, not including gaming revenue.

“I am disappointed at the hypocrisy shown by this Administration,” Gibbons said, “President Obama is coming to Las Vegas later this month for a political fundraiser, but he will not help the struggling families in Las Vegas and Nevada who are out of work because of his reckless comments.” Governor Gibbons noted.

“President Obama is coming to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash for Senator Harry Reid, apparently our money is good enough for the President, but our tourism, jobs, and economic future are not.” Gibbons added, “This is politics, pure and simple, President Obama stood for change, but all he has done is brought negative economic change to Nevada.”

Governor Gibbons is calling upon Senator Reid to use any influence he might have to ask President Obama to encourage Americans to visit America during their summer vacations this year.

“Sometimes Washington politicians forget that the people of Nevada are Americans,” Governor Gibbons said, “This President needs to repair the damage he has done.”

Obama: 'Freedom of Choice Act' is, and isn't, my Highest Legislative priority

During the presidential campaign - while addressing a Planned Parenthood conference - Barack Obama was asked: "What would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion, but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?"

Obama replied: ""Well, the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, that's the first thing I'd do!"

However, at a news conference on April 29 - in the midst of the firestorm surrounding the president's then-upcoming commencement speech at Notre Dame - Obama was asked: "Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame. And, as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy...

"As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion.... Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act so you can sign it?"

Toward the end of his response, the president remarked: "The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority."

Bear in mind that this wasn't your typical Obama flip-flop. In this instance, the president was asked specifically about his statement to Planned Parenthood, namely, that the first thing he'd "do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act". And without blinking an eye, he brazenly contradicted himself and replied: "The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority."

No hesitation, no compunction, just political expedience..... at its worst.

With the Notre Dame controversy swirling around him and his soon-to-be-delivered commencement address awaiting him, the president responded in typical Obama fashion - being the master prevaricator that he is.

Nevertheless, pro-choicers have absolutely nothing to fear since the aforementioned flip-flop was nothing more than political expedience. The Freedom of Choice Act will soon be inscribed into law. For indeed, this piece of legislation is sacrosanct, and it is unquestionably, one of Obama's highest legislative priorities.....

Obama Flip-Flops on Afghanistan

From the Financial Times - Feb 28, 2009:
Afghanistan yesterday warned Barack Obama's administration not to downgrade its goals for the country or jettison the idea of Afghan democracy, in comments that highlighted the intensifying debate over international strategy in the region...

Afghanistan's foreign minister, said it would be "very, very dangerous" to adopt "reductionist" goals that gave up on the idea of a democratic Afghanistan.

Mr Spanta's remarks are the latest sign of tension between Afghanistan and the Obama administration...

Mr Obama has already set out the clear direction of his new administration. "We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy," the president told NBC News this month.

"What we can do is make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for al-Qaeda. What we can do is make sure that it is not destabilizing neighboring Pakistan."

Mr Spanta argued against any suggestion that "we have to reduce our expectations [in Afghanistan or that] we have to remove only al-Qaeda." Insisting such a policy would not bring long term stability, he said that he and his colleagues had used "every occasion here in Washington" and elsewhere "to defend ourselves, to articulate our claim for democracy for us and our children".
And CNN reported likewise on Feb. 7, 2009:
When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks, then-President Bush said the goal in Afghanistan was "to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology."

Seven years, billions of dollars and hundreds of U.S. casualties later, the goals are more pragmatic and modest....

Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautions that goals have been too broad and need to be need to be more "realistic and limited," or the U.S. risks failure.

"If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money, to be honest," Gates told senators...

Obama [also] seemed to signal a more modest approach, defining the mission as limited solely to stabilizing Afghanistan.

"What we can do is make sure that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for al Qaeda...," Obama told NBC News. "We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy."
Well, that was then, but now the president has decided to change his philosophy and adapt Mr. Bush's strategy. In an interview with Newsweek Magazine on Saturday, Obama stated that a Democratically elected government in Afghanistan was indeed necessary to prevent the Taliban from taking over:
We are not going to succeed simply [in Afghanistan] by piling on more and more troops....," [Obama said]. "We have to see our military action in the context of a broader effort to stabilize security..., allow national elections to take place in Afghanistan and then provide the space for the vital development work that's needed so that a tolerant and open, democratically elected government is considered far more legitimate than a Taliban alternative....
Hmmm....

Let's read the first couple of paragraphs from CNN again:
When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks, then-President Bush said the goal in Afghanistan was "to build a flourishing democracy as an alternative to a hateful ideology."

Seven years, billions of dollars and hundreds of U.S. casualties later, the goals are more pragmatic and modest....
But lets read Obama's revised strategy again and see if those goals have really changed:
We have to... stabilize security in the country..., allow national elections to take place...and then provide the space for the vital development work that's needed so that a tolerant and open, democratically elected government is considered far more legitimate than a Taliban alternative...."
Exactly what President Bush had said.

Another Flip flop from Obama?

Sure looks like it........

Monday, May 11, 2009

Pelosi Deserves a Medal!

Yes, you read the post-title correctly! Rush Limbaugh made that declaration on his radio program on Monday.

"And why," you are probably asking yourselves, "does Nancy Pelosi deserve a medal?"

Answer: Because - as it has recently been revealed - she knew about the CIA's waterboarding/ harsh interrogation techniques, and yet, she kept it all under wraps because she knew these procedures were keeping America safe from terrorist attacks.

Of course, she now disavows this noble and patriotic gesture. But regardless of her current denials and prevarications, she still deserves credit for keeping her mouth shut at a time when American lives were in jeopardy. That's why Rush Limbaugh believes the eminent House Speaker is deserving of a medal.

Here's a few excerpts from Rush Limbaugh's website - transcript:
RUSH: Folks, do you remember that line you learned when you were a little kid -- the philosophy question, logic question -- "If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there, does it make a sound?" Remember that question?

Well, there's a new version of this that I, ladies and gentlemen, would like to put forth: "If a liberal tells a whopper of a lie and no one reports it, is it a lie?" ...

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were as on-board as Dick Cheney was with waterboarding... She is lying through the teeth about being unaware of this. If a liberal tells a whopper of a lie and nobody reports it, is it a lie?...

But I think Nancy Pelosi actually deserves our praise -- and she might even deserve a medal. She was the guardian of waterboarding... When all of these techniques were being used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others at Guantanamo Bay, Nancy Pelosi knew they were being used. She was in on the briefings! She stayed silent. Nancy Pelosi was the guardian of waterboarding. Her silence permitted us to gain valuable intel. She deserves a medal.
Perhaps we should all write to the president and beseach him to give Nancy Pelosi a medal . After all, it's the least we can do to thank her for helping to keep this country safe - isn't it?.....

Wanda Sykes Overlooks Obama's Drug Use

I think most people would agree that there's a huge difference between an individual who develops a temporary addiction to pain killers - as a result of taking these medications for a specific ailment - and someone who spends two years of his life in a daze, trying out drugs and smoking reefers.

Which is why Hot Air Pundit makes a great point when he/she says: "Correspondents Dinner's... Wanda Sykes Overlooks Barack Obama's "Enthusiastic" Drug Use."

Several years ago, Rush Limbaugh developed an addiction [for a period of time] to pain medications, which prompted comedienne Wanda Sykes, to take a jab at him, saying she thinks Mr. Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was so strung out on pain killers that he missed his flight. [Sykes also said she hopes Mr. Limbaugh's kidney's fail him.] The president sat back in his seat and laughed hysterically at Ms. Syke's joke, while choosing to ignore his dubious past, specifically, his rarely publicized pot-smoking sprees.

From Dreams from my Father:
I spent the last two years of high school in a daze, blocking away the questions that life seemed insistent on posing. I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically.

I discovered that it didn’t make any difference whether you smoked reefer in the white classmate’s sparkling new van, or in the dorm room with some brother you’d met down at the gym, or on the beach with a couple of Hawaiian kids who had dropped out of school, and now spent most of their time looking for an excuse to brawl. Nobody asked you whether your father was a fat cat executive who cheated on his wife, or some laid-off Joe who slapped you around whenever he bothered to come home. You might just be bored or alone. Everybody was welcome into the club of disaffection.

And if the high didn’t solve whatever it was that was getting you down, it could at least help you laugh at the world’s ongoing folly, and see through all the hypocrisy and bullshit and cheap moralism.
But Obama no longer smokes reefers, and that's why he can't see through his own "hypocrisy" - or Wanda Sykes "bullshit", for that matter.

Yesterday, I expressed confidence that Obama would publicly condemn Ms. Sykes for wishing ill upon Mr. Limbaugh and saying she hoped his "kidneys fail" him etc. - as he had done last year when comedian Bernie Mac uttered a string of distasteful remarks [at an Obama fundraiser]. However, my confidence in the president's niceties is slowly dissipating each and every hour.

Nevertheless, I wonder why the mainstream media hasn't noted the aforementioned hypocrisy. Might it be that they've also ceased to smoke reefers and can no longer see through Obama's "hypocrisies" and Wanda Sykes' "bullshit"?

That would indeed explain the mainstream media's constant double standard. But it's difficult for me to believe these journalists were any different back in their college, pot-smoking days. After all, it was precisely during those years that they received their indoctrination and became both permanently brainwashed and brain-dead for life.......





H/T Hot Air Pundit

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Obama & Biden mock each other with Dogged Determination

At the White House Correspondence dinner on Saturday, Barack Obama made the following joke:

“All this change hasn’t been easy,” he said, reflecting on his early days in the White House. “Change never is. So I’ve cut the tension by bringing in a new friend to the White House. He’s warm, cuddly, loyal, enthusiastic, and you have to keep him on a tight leash because every now and then he goes charging off in the wrong direction and gets himself in trouble.”

Pause…..

“Enough about Joe Biden,” he deadpanned.

This wasn't the first time that Obama addressed the Vice president in such fashion, as evidenced by the following video:




However, Mr. Biden - not one to take such jabs sitting sitting down - made sure to return the president's barbs.

On Sunday, after delivering the commencement address at Syracuse University, Mr. Biden stopped by to chat with students at Bellevue Elementary School:
During the intense question and answer period between Biden and the students, one child asked the vice president if he had ever petted a dog.

“Yeah, but guess what? I’ve got a dog that lives with me,” Biden replied. “The smartest, coolest dog in the world.”

“The new dog I have is only five months old and his name is Champ,” Biden told the schoolkids.

“My dog is smarter than Bo, his [Obama's] dog,” he jabbed.

“I think so,” he taunted. Yeah, I do!”
Perhaps Mr. Biden is correct, but I'd first like to hear Bo's opinion on the matter........

Related Post: Biden Mocks Obama! - Teleprompter Joke

Will the President Condemn Wanda Sykes, as he did with Bernie Mac?

Today, on ABC's This Week program with George Stephanopoulos, the panel praised the president's performance at the White House Correspondence dinner on Saturday. However, Sam Donaldson criticized a speech delivered by comedienne Wanda Sykes, saying she had crossed the line when she stated: "I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker on 9/11"; "I hope his kidneys fail" and that he "needs a waterboarding".



From ABC's This Week Program:
Donaldson: What I liked about [Obama's speech] was that all the zingers.... were in the Gridiron tradition. They singed, but didn't burn. They weren't mean. [However], from what I saw from... the mistress of ceremony [Wanda Sykes], I can't say the same thing. I think Rush Limbaugh should be condemned for whatever meaning he had when he said he wanted the president to fail, and you can jab at him for that, but she [Wanda Sykes] apparently crossed the line as far as I'm concerned.

During a campaign fundraiser for Barack Obama last year - which Obama had attended - comedian Bernie Mac - the guest speaker - made some off-color jokes about menopause, sexual infidelity and promiscuity. Mr. Mac encountered some heckling from members of the audience who asserted that the jokes were offensive. One audience member hollered, "It's not funny. Let's get Barack on!"

About 15 minutes later, Obama tried to smooth things over:
"We can't afford to be divided by race. We can't afford to be divided by region or by class, and we can't afford to be divided by gender, which, by the way, that means, Bernie, you've got to clean up your act next time," Obama said. "This is a family affair..."

The incident later drew a response from Obama's campaign, which criticized Mac's material:

"Sen. Obama told Bernie Mac that he doesn't condone these statements and believes what was said was inappropriate," spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in a statement after the event.
However, on Saturday the president seemed to respond positively to Wanda Sykes' crass remarks. Obama smiled broadly and seemed delighted and a bit amused as Sykes expressed her desire to see Mr. Limbaugh's kidneys fail, while associating him with the 9/11 hijackers and saying he needs to be waterboarded. No one in the [Liberal media] audience seemed offended by her vituperations, nor did they demand the president rebuke her as the audience did when comedian Bernie Mac uttered his distasteful remarks

Mr. Donaldson maintained that Rush Limbaugh should be "condemned" for saying he wanted the president to fail, and yet, while he admitted that Wanda Sykes "crossed the line" when she wished ill upon Mr. Limbaugh, Donaldson never called on the president to condemn her.

Nevertheless, since Mr. Donaldson and his liberal cohorts have decided to let the president off the hook, I have no choice but to speak up and demand that the president condemn Ms. Sykes - just as he did when Bernie Mac uttered remarks that were seemingly less offensive than Ms. Sykes' remarks:

Mr. President, last year, you berated Bernie Mac and told him you do not condone his statements and feel that what he said was inappropriate. Since you don't have "a mean bone in your body" - as attested to by Robert Reich on ABC's This Week program, and since you are widely renowned as both the ultimate "healer" and "unifier", I hereby call on you to both rebuke and condemn Ms. Sykes for her mean-spirited, iniquitous and inappropriate remarks!

I hope you'll rise to the challenge. I believe you will.......

Cheney on Powell: I didn't know he was still a Republican

From CBS's Face the Nation - Sunday:
Bob Schieffer: Rush Limbaugh said the other day the party probably would be better off if Colin Powell... became a Democrat, and Colin Powell said the Republicans would be better off if they didn't have Rush Limbaugh speaking for them. Where do you come down?

Dick Cheney: Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd go with Rush Limbaugh... My take on it was Colin had already left the party, I didn't know he was still a Republican......


Cheney's take is quite understandable. Considering that Mr. Powell now believes in higher taxes and more government, when he vehemently opposed these things in his autobiography [and at a speech to the Republican National Convention in '96], it would indeed seem as if Powell has changed parties - or at least he's trying to portray himself in a different light, being the typical pol that he is....

Friday, May 8, 2009

Obama Officials Meet With Hamas - "Don't Tell Me Words Don't Matter, Just Words, Just Speeches!"

On March 3, 2008, when questioned by ABC's David Wright if Hamas fell into the category of meeting with adversaries, Barack Obama replied no, “I think that it is entirely legitimate to make distinctions between those who are heads of state, heads of established countries and those who have advocated terrorism... I think that is a perfectly appropriate distinction to draw."

However, Osama Hamdan, Hamas' top leader in Lebanon, told Time Magazine that - in recent weeks - there had indeed "been unofficial talks between Hamas and the team of President Barack Obama's Middle East special envoy, George Mitchell."

During the presidential campaign, Robert Malley - at the time, Obama’s Middle East policy adviser - disclosed that he had held meetings with Hamas, which prompted Obama to sever all links with him.

However, the divorce didn't last too long, for shortly after that firing, it was reported that Obama had sent Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria to outline his policy on the Middle East.

The Obama campaign later denied this report. However, after all is said and done, it seems that Obama and his cronies will meet with any and everyone - international pariahs, tyrants and even cold-blooded terrorists.

In 2008, the president maintained there was a distinction between meeting " those who are heads of state, heads of established countries and those who have advocated terrorism", but apparently, this was merely political posturing and rhetoric on his part. Or to quote the Messiah himself: "Just words", that's all, "just speeches"......

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Obama's Budget Eliminates New Funding for Nuclear Detection

From the Washington Post:
President Obama would eliminate new funding for advanced-generation equipment to detect nuclear weapons and radiological materials at U.S. borders and ports and around New York City in his 2010 budget, homeland security officials said.

The decisions, outlined in Homeland Security Department budget documents and briefings Thursday, mark a turn away from a priority of the administration of former president George W. Bush, who with former vice president Dick Cheney championed development of new technologies that could lead to a ring of domestic sensors of weapons of mass destruction.

But the research effort... has run into problems. Technical flaws and doubts about the integrity of scientific testing have delayed multi-billion dollar plans to buy advanced... sytems... to scan for nuclear materials aboard cars, trucks, trains and cargo moving through air and land ports.

Congress has forced DHS's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to hold off on new purchases, and Obama declined to request funds to buy equipment under DNDO beyond the $153 million Bush obtained last year....

Obama is also ending Securing the Cities, a three-year, $90 million pilot program intended to test whether it is possible to secure an urban area -- in this case New York City -- against nuclear terrorism by draping it with an integrated system of handheld, aerial, truck-mounted and waterborne sensors...
"I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending...."
Barack Obama - October 22, 2007

Gallup Poll: European Muslims Feel Far More Isolated than US Muslims

"We've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular."
Barack Obama in an interview with the LA Times and Chicago Tribune - Dec. 2008

From Reuters - May 7, 2009:
Muslims living in European countries feel far more isolated than those living in the United States, according to a survey on coexistence, with a lack of access to education and jobs reinforcing a sense of ostracism, according to the results of a recent Gallup poll...

Muslims in Europe are working hard to fit in and say it is important, but they are not always seen to be succeeding....

While 38 percent of Muslims in Germany, 35 percent of those in the United Kingdom and 29 percent of those in France were found to be "isolated" in their countries, that figure stood at just 15 percent in the United States and 20 percent in Canada...
"We've got a unique opportunity to reboot America's image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular."

I think Barack Obama owes this country an apology. After all, Muslims seem to feel a lot more at home in the US than they do in other parts of the world, and undoubtedly, they are thankful for that. Perhaps, instead of maligning America while visiting abroad, the president should embark on another world tour and ask the Europeans to be more tolerant of their fellow citizens.

The president has "a unique opportunity to reboot America's image" - an image that is now in shambles as a result of his constant malignment of this country - if he would only stop besmirching the US and apologize to America for his slanderous remarks......

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Holder & Obama, No 'Openness', No 'Transparency'

Barack Obama and Eric Holder Then:

"For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city."
Barack Obama - January, 2009

"Americans deserve a government that operates with transparency and openness."
Eric Holder - March, 2009

Barack Obama and Eric Holder Now:
The Obama administration is reportedly set to announce the release onto U.S. soil of at least some of the 17 Uighur detainees currently being held at Gitmo. All 17 are members or associates of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Party (ETIP), a designated terrorist organization with ties to al Qaeda. The pending release of the detainees has caused widespread debate and concern.

According to Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), Attorney General Eric Holder is preventing members of Congress from receiving a full briefing on the Uighurs and the threat they may pose.

“I have asked for briefings from career employees at the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security – and have been told by each agency that the Attorney General will not allow them to meet with me,” Wolf told THE WEEKLY STANDARD. “What is the Attorney General hiding? This is not the transparency and accountability the president promised, nor is it the open and constructive relationship he claims to want with Congress."

Most, if not all, of the Uighur detainees were trained at a camp in Tora Bora, Afghanistan, prior to the September 11 attacks.... -
Read full article
Oh well, maybe there won't be that much "transparency", after all...

Colin Powell Now; Colin Powell Then

Colin Powell Now:
"The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Powell told corporate security executives [on Tuesday] at a conference in Washington sponsored by Fortify Software Inc. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services," he said. "Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less."
May 5, 2009
Colin Powell Then:
"We are the party committed to lessening the burden of taxes, cutting government regulations and reducing government spending, to generate the higher economic growth that will bring better jobs, wages and living standards to all our people. All of us must be willing to do with less from government if we are to avoid condemning our children with a crushing burden of debt that will deny them the American Dream. It is the entitlement state that must be reformed, and not just the welfare state."
In his speech to the Republican National Convention - Aug. 12, 1996
"I am concerned that the present tax burden on Americans is so high that it seriously risks dampening our entrepreneurial vitality. Every tax dollar taken away from a consumer or business is a dollar that will be spent less efficiently than if left in private hands."
From Colin Powell's Autobigraphy, 'My American Journey' - 1995
Oh well........

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

White House won't release Pics of Air Force One Flyover? Why not Create your Own Pic?!


From Confederate Yankee:
The New York Post is reporting that the $328,835 photo op organized by the White House that terrified New Yorkers will not be released. Apparently, an Administration willing to release classified interrogation photos that will be used for terrorist recruiting and inciting attacks against deployed soldiers can't bring itself to release photos of a public event for fear of causing President Obama some indirect personal
embarrassment......
Ouch!

However, for those of you who were planning on hanging a photo of the Air Force One flyover on their living room wall, no need to sweat! If the White House won't release those photos, you can always create your own! As CNET explains:
With a few basic Photo shop skills and an Air Force One press photo, we're betting you can make some pretty convincing images of Air Force One flyovers, without sending people running in the streets.
It's really very simple. As CNET explains: 1) Simply find a photo of Air force One on the Internet. 2)Take one of your own photos of tech landmarks and locations and paste in Air Force One! Voila! Air Force One flyover! [ed. note: Of course, this would merely be a photo taken from outside the plane and you've probably seen dozens of those already. But, you know how the the old adage goes, "beggars can't be choosers". Sorry about that]

And, in case you were wondering: The above photo was created by CNET (sorry, but I'm not that artistic), and so was the photo below:


Nevertheless, for those Obamalytes and Bush bashers who'd prefer to hang a CIA interrogation photo in their living rooms, no need to worry. The White House will be releasing those photos soon. It's the least they can do to appease the aggrieved terrorists............

Arab Diplomats to Obama: Stop being so Mild with Iran

From M & C:
'Iran and Syria are more powerful than before the (2003) invasion of Iraq,' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told reporters in Damascus after meeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday.

'It is time to evict the foreign presence, which has caused so many problems for the people, from the region,' Ahmadinejad said.
From the Guardian:
...U.S. overtures to Iran are raising concerns among its Arab allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel. They fear Iran is trying to spread its influence across the Middle East, with its support of Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant groups.

Arab diplomats who met in Cairo Tuesday with the State Department's new special envoy for the Persian Gulf, Dennis Ross, said they voiced those concerns.

"Some of what he heard was more than just grievances. They warned that Washington should be careful not to be so mild to Iran," said one diplomat who attended one of these encounters...

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit expressed similar concerns on Monday.

"Iran's behavior in the region is negative in many aspects and does not help in advancing security, stability and peace," the state-run Middle East News Agency quoted Aboul Gheit as telling Ross...
I vehemently disagree with these sentiments! It is time for Obama to send another video message to the Iranian government! A warm personal greeting from the president is the most powerful weapon we have in our arsenal. Obama has the ability to melt even the most callous of hearts. That's why they call him the Messiah, right?

Okay, I'll admit, Iran is supplying lethal weaponry to the Taliban [in Afghanistan] and the insurgents in Iraq, but these threats are tiny compared to the threat once posed to us by the Soviet Union, right?

But hey, I think I've got a better idea!

Obama could produce one video per month, where he would address all the tyrants of the world and offer them his best wishes and warmest regards. The videos could then be sold on Netflix or the jihadist websites. As part of the president's outreach program, the Ahmadinejads of the world would receive a special discount on all his videos. The proceeds would go to the White House where the money would be used help fund the president's porkulus package.

It's a win-win situation for all! And who knows where these videos could lead to!

Maybe a movie career for Obama in the Middle East or Central Asia!

And I've even got a great title for Obama's next video:

"Obama administration drops "war on terror" from its lexicon."!

That one would be a huge seller on the jihadist websites, that's for sure!

No need for belligerence. A little bit of good will, a touch of marketing savvy, and all the world's problems will be solved!

Monday, May 4, 2009

Obama: 'End-of-Life' Care Too Costly

In an interview with the New York Times' Magazine, posted online on Sunday, Barack Obama expressed concern over the huge costs of "end-of-life" care. The president cited as a case in point his own grandmother - who received hip replacement surgery shortly after learning she had become terminally ill:
OBAMA: Now, I actually think that the tougher issue around medical care... is what you do around things like end-of-life care.

DAVID LEONHARDT - NY TIMES: Yes, where it’s $20,000 for an extra week of life.

OBAMA: Exactly. And I just recently went through this... My grandmother got very ill during the campaign...; it was determined to be terminal. And about two or three weeks after her diagnosis she fell, broke her hip... and she elected to get... hip replacement...

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting.

LEONHARDT: And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

OBAMA: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it? [ed. note: Why not euthanize all end-of-life patients?]

OBAMA: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
Apparently, Barack Obama is more than willing to spend tax-payer dollars to help combat Global Warming and enhance the quality-of-life of his eco-friendly constituents, but when it comes to improving the quality-of-life of the chronically ill, well, that's just a little bit too costly for him.

Typical left-wing perversion.


Earlier in the interview, Obama reassures Mr. Leonhardt that a plan he had proposed to create a council of federal employees to conduct comparative-effectiveness studies of various medical treatments would not affect the "doctor-patient relationship" or reduce the quality of medical health care, but would solely be used to help lower the cost of medical expenses.

However, Obama's apparent willingness to alter 'end-of-life care' as we know it today, makes that claim appear to be disingenuous and dubious at best.

And, I assume that most 'end-of-life patients' [and 'born alive abortees'] would agree with that assessment...

Betsy McCaughey notes that Obama's proposed plan to create a federal council to conduct comparative-effectiveness studies "reflects the handiwork of Tom Daschle", who was once Obama's nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.
In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make...

The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system...

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision...
Of course, Obama reassures us that - unlike the aforementioned UK health board- the federal council that he plans to set up will not have legislative powers and will solely make recommendations on how to cut medical costs.

But can we really be sure those recommendations won't be signed into law one day? Moreover, since Obama has expressed a willingness to alter 'end-of-life care' as we know it today", can we really trust him, or his panel, to make recommendations on cutting the costs of our health care? I don't think so....

Friday, May 1, 2009

Clinton: Iran, Venezuela Ties Disturbing?

Hmmm, I don't get this one:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday described Iranian and Chinese gains in Latin America as “disturbing”...

Clinton told Foreign Service officers at a State Department meeting, that the Bush administration’s efforts to isolate leaders from nations like Venezuela and Bolivia, only made them adopt “more negative” attitudes toward Washington, and receptive to other powers

“...If you look at gains particularly in Latin America that Iran is making and China is making, it is quite disturbing. They are building very strong economic and political connections with a lot of these leaders,” she said...

Highlighting those concerns, Iran and Venezuela yesterday signed a Memorandum of Understanding on defense cooperation. Earlier this month, the two countries set up a joint bank, to finance their common development projects.

Clinton told diplomats and other State Department staff that Iran was building a “huge embassy” in Nicaragua’s capital, Managua. “And we can only imagine what it’s for,” she said...

In late January, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused Iran of conducting “subversive activities” in Latin America.

Clinton said today that the new administration was exploring how to build better relations with Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia....

Question: If it's okay for Obama to build better relations with both Iran and Venezuela, and their respective leaders, why would Hillary Clinton object to Iran trying to build better relations with Venezuela?! "Iran does not pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did", right? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a pretty swell fellow and so is Hugo Chavez! What's the big deal?

Conclusion: If you believe in the virtue of chumming up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez, you can't suddenly object when these two leaders decide to chum it up with one another, can you? Not unless you happen to be a hypocrite, or a bit confused........

Mr. President, Stop Cavorting with the Enemy!

Barack Obama has said that he plans to enlist Iran's help in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The left contends that Iran is eager to assist the US in Afghanistan because the Taliban is responsible for the vast amounts of opium that have been smuggled across the Afghan border into Iran.

But of course, this contention is patently absurd, because Iran has been working in cahoots with the Taliban, as attested to by the State Department's annual report on terrorism, released on Thursday:
Iran’s IRGC Qods Force provided assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qods Force provided training to the Taliban on small unit tactics, small arms, explosives, and indirect fire ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107mm rockets, and plastic explosives....

Iran continues to rely primarily on its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force to clandestinely cultivate and support terrorist and Islamic militant groups abroad... The Qods Force continued to provide lethal support to select Iraqi militant groups that target U.S., Iraqi and Coalition forces. Iranian weapons transfers to select Taliban members in Afghanistan in 2008 continued to threaten Afghan and NATO troops operating under UN mandate and undermine stabilization efforts in that country.
So much for Iran's contempt of the Taliban and it's drug smuggling operations...

And for those on the left who claim that Iran only aligned itself with the Taliban and Al Qaeda after the US invasion of Afghanistan, I would point to the 9/11 commission's findings once again. Yes, I know, this is probably the third or fourth time that I've cited these findings, but, repetition, at times, is necessary:
Between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001....

Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier...

Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia...
The Iranians can not possibly help us in Afghanistan, because they are aligned with Al Qaeda and they are supplying weapons to the Taliban for the sole purpose of murdering our troops.

Why isn't anyone querying the president about this? Why is he being given a free ride to engage in a foreign policy which makes absolutely no sense?

Mr. President, stop this nonsense already! Iran is our sworn enemy! No more overtures! Tell them they must release Roxana Saberi forthwith and dismantle their nuclear program immediately! And that they must cease all assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and end all terrorist activities promptly!

Make them an offer they can't refuse! And pleeease, stop being so self destructive, and Jimmy Carter-like!