Showing posts with label that silly kid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label that silly kid. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Obama Has Been Talking to Syria For A While
On Feb. 1, 2009 al Arabiya reported: "The Syrian president himself revealed on Monday that "dialogue started some weeks ago in a serious manner through personalities who are close to the administration and who were dispatched by the administration.""
Sunday, February 1, 2009
That'll Learn 'Em To Vote Against Obama: He'll Standby And Watch Them Die
Heckuva job, newguy!
This is pasted and copied complete from Stop the ACLU:
Another gross FEMA failure — but it is not the President’s fault this time
Posted on February 1, 2009
It’s only the fault of the President if he is a Republican
Where is FEMA? That’s the question rural southerners are asking. Or would be asking if their lips weren’t frozen shut. At least 42 people have died, including 11 in Kentucky, and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million customers from the Plains to the East Coast. About a million people were still without electric Friday, and with no hope that the lights will come back on soon, small communities are frantically struggling to help their residents.
The death toll may be higher already, Grayson County Emergency Management Director Randell Smith indicates there are many people they just haven’t been able to get to. “We don’t even know that they’re alive,” said Smith, who also indicated that the National Guard showed up without even chainsaws to clear fallen trees from the roads.
Across the stricken area, local officials are increasingly upset at the lack of assistance from the Federal Government. As Tim Blair puts it, “according to the Katrina template, this is all Obama’s fault.” Right, Kanye?
FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak said that some FEMA people are getting out into the state, but indicated that they are hampered by icy and dangerous conditions. So, just so we are clear Mary, the ice emergency is hard to help with because its all icy? The worst hit areas are poor rural counties. You know, the kind full of bitter people clinging to guns and religion. I reckon they’re clinging to them right now. Facing freezing to death alone in the country no doubt puts one’s mind to prayer. More from the AP:
Even for those who wanted to leave, it wasn’t possible. The one gas station in Marion that was up and running was able to supply gasoline to emergency vehicles only until another delivery of gasoline arrived Friday. Only half of that gas was made available to the public, and there was a $10 limit. Linda Young, who is staying the town’s shelter, said her car only had enough gas in it to get around Marion. Even if she had gas, there was nowhere to go - all of her relatives in other parts of Kentucky also were hit by the ice storm.
They are trapped, huddled in shelters, and wondering what’s next. But hey, the governor said Obama called him and was all, you know, worried. So it’s not like he’s not doing anything. I wonder if the President told the Governor that Kentuckians should “toughen up”? Is “flinty” a synonym for grossly insensitive? It would, of course, be despicable to suggest the President isn’t helping because of the race and income levels of the majority of the victims. Although as Jeff Emanuel notes, it’s been known to happen.
This is pasted and copied complete from Stop the ACLU:
Another gross FEMA failure — but it is not the President’s fault this time
Posted on February 1, 2009
It’s only the fault of the President if he is a Republican
Where is FEMA? That’s the question rural southerners are asking. Or would be asking if their lips weren’t frozen shut. At least 42 people have died, including 11 in Kentucky, and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million customers from the Plains to the East Coast. About a million people were still without electric Friday, and with no hope that the lights will come back on soon, small communities are frantically struggling to help their residents.
The death toll may be higher already, Grayson County Emergency Management Director Randell Smith indicates there are many people they just haven’t been able to get to. “We don’t even know that they’re alive,” said Smith, who also indicated that the National Guard showed up without even chainsaws to clear fallen trees from the roads.
Across the stricken area, local officials are increasingly upset at the lack of assistance from the Federal Government. As Tim Blair puts it, “according to the Katrina template, this is all Obama’s fault.” Right, Kanye?
FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak said that some FEMA people are getting out into the state, but indicated that they are hampered by icy and dangerous conditions. So, just so we are clear Mary, the ice emergency is hard to help with because its all icy? The worst hit areas are poor rural counties. You know, the kind full of bitter people clinging to guns and religion. I reckon they’re clinging to them right now. Facing freezing to death alone in the country no doubt puts one’s mind to prayer. More from the AP:
Even for those who wanted to leave, it wasn’t possible. The one gas station in Marion that was up and running was able to supply gasoline to emergency vehicles only until another delivery of gasoline arrived Friday. Only half of that gas was made available to the public, and there was a $10 limit. Linda Young, who is staying the town’s shelter, said her car only had enough gas in it to get around Marion. Even if she had gas, there was nowhere to go - all of her relatives in other parts of Kentucky also were hit by the ice storm.
They are trapped, huddled in shelters, and wondering what’s next. But hey, the governor said Obama called him and was all, you know, worried. So it’s not like he’s not doing anything. I wonder if the President told the Governor that Kentuckians should “toughen up”? Is “flinty” a synonym for grossly insensitive? It would, of course, be despicable to suggest the President isn’t helping because of the race and income levels of the majority of the victims. Although as Jeff Emanuel notes, it’s been known to happen.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Not With A Bang But A Whimper -- Obama's Contacts With Al Qaida
from Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
WASHINGTON -- Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from Al Qaida in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said Al Qaida has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to Al Qaida on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States," a diplomatic source said. "Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An article in Geostrategy-Direct on Nov. 19, 2008 noted that "perception, whether solidly based on reality or not, is the basis for geopolitics. And the fact is that many Muslims throughout the world perceive Barack Obama to be one of their own even though he is a professed Christian."
On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which contains 245 suspected Al Qaida members. The president said he would also dismantle unspecified CIA holding centers for Al Qaida detainees.
"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," Obama said in an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite channel on Jan. 26. "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy -- we sometimes make mistakes -- we have not been perfect," Obama said.
The two presidential decisions prompted calls for reconciliation by a range of leading Muslims. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi called on the United States to launch a dialogue with Al Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden while the Al Qaida-aligned Gamiat Islamiya urged an immediate four-month ceasefire.
At this point, the sources said, Al Qaida appears divided over Obama. They said Al Qaida's No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri has regarded Obama, identified as a Muslim in much of the Arab world, as dangerous to the jihad movement, while others believe the new president was intent on ending the so-called global war on terrorism, begun in 2001. The U.S. war was sparked by Al Qaida air strikes in New York and Washington, which killed more than 3,000 Americans.
"Addressing the Islamic world, Obama said we are in need of a new direction," a statement by Gamiat leaders said. "So he is calling for adopting a new approach that differs to the blocked and irrational path that [former U.S. President George] Bush followed."
As a result, Gamiat has opposed a call by Al Qaida leader Abu Yehya Al Libi for renewed attacks on the West, particularly Britain and the United States. The Egyptian-based Islamic network warned that such attacks would force Obama to rescind his decision to close Guantanamo and resume the U.S. offensive against Al Qaida.
"These positions -- Obama announcing a diplomatic approach towards Iran and its nuclear file, his willingness to close Guantanamo Bay, and his request that judges suspend trials for four months in Guantanamo Bay -- show that there is a new opportunity that must be explored and not thrown away before making sure that it is just a mirage," Sheik Essam Derbala, a Gamiat leader, said.
The diplomatic sources said Obama's effort has been endorsed by most of the U.S. intelligence community. They said the community has assessed that Al Qaida, isolated in northwestern Pakistan, would not reemerge in Afghanistan, even under a Taliban regime.
"The United States has imposed attrition on Al Qaida, disrupting its command, control and communications and isolating it," George Friedman, a U.S. strategist and director of Stratfor, said in a report. "To avoid penetration by hostile intelligence services, Al Qaida has not recruited new cadres for its primary unit. This makes it very difficult to develop intelligence on Al Qaida, but it also makes it impossible for Al Qaida to replace its losses."
Still, Saudi Arabia has been concerned over any reconciliation between Al Qaida and the United States. The sources said Saudi King Abdullah fears that Obama's effort would legitimize Al Qaida and bolster its status in the Gulf Arab kingdom.
"Calling for a dialogue with Al Qaida alone is evidence of the extent of our shortsightedness and our failure to understand what is more of a threat to us than to the West," Tariq Al Homayed, editor of the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat daily, said. "What we need is to tackle the threat posed by Al Qaida's ideology rather than Al Qaida members."
Al Homayed, said to be close to the Saudi leadership, envisioned a contest among Arab states to sponsor an Al Qaida-U.S. reconciliation conference. He urged the Saudi leadership to clearly oppose such an effort.
"Interaction with Washington and Obama is important, especially with regards to what concerns us," Al Homayed wrote in an editorial. "But if our reactions are going to resemble those that are mentioned above, then this will be frustrating, not for Washington, but for us, the people of the region who are hoping for a better future."
END OF QUOTED MATERIAL
WOW
Is Obama guilty of sedition? Is he dumb enough to think that Al Qaida might be honest and up front with him? What would be gained since all the serious jihadis would just leave Al Qaida for other organizations?
WASHINGTON -- Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from Al Qaida in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said Al Qaida has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
"For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to Al Qaida on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States," a diplomatic source said. "Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
An article in Geostrategy-Direct on Nov. 19, 2008 noted that "perception, whether solidly based on reality or not, is the basis for geopolitics. And the fact is that many Muslims throughout the world perceive Barack Obama to be one of their own even though he is a professed Christian."
On his first day in office, Obama ordered the shutdown of the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which contains 245 suspected Al Qaida members. The president said he would also dismantle unspecified CIA holding centers for Al Qaida detainees.
"Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect," Obama said in an interview to the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite channel on Jan. 26. "I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries."
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy -- we sometimes make mistakes -- we have not been perfect," Obama said.
The two presidential decisions prompted calls for reconciliation by a range of leading Muslims. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi called on the United States to launch a dialogue with Al Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden while the Al Qaida-aligned Gamiat Islamiya urged an immediate four-month ceasefire.
At this point, the sources said, Al Qaida appears divided over Obama. They said Al Qaida's No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri has regarded Obama, identified as a Muslim in much of the Arab world, as dangerous to the jihad movement, while others believe the new president was intent on ending the so-called global war on terrorism, begun in 2001. The U.S. war was sparked by Al Qaida air strikes in New York and Washington, which killed more than 3,000 Americans.
"Addressing the Islamic world, Obama said we are in need of a new direction," a statement by Gamiat leaders said. "So he is calling for adopting a new approach that differs to the blocked and irrational path that [former U.S. President George] Bush followed."
As a result, Gamiat has opposed a call by Al Qaida leader Abu Yehya Al Libi for renewed attacks on the West, particularly Britain and the United States. The Egyptian-based Islamic network warned that such attacks would force Obama to rescind his decision to close Guantanamo and resume the U.S. offensive against Al Qaida.
"These positions -- Obama announcing a diplomatic approach towards Iran and its nuclear file, his willingness to close Guantanamo Bay, and his request that judges suspend trials for four months in Guantanamo Bay -- show that there is a new opportunity that must be explored and not thrown away before making sure that it is just a mirage," Sheik Essam Derbala, a Gamiat leader, said.
The diplomatic sources said Obama's effort has been endorsed by most of the U.S. intelligence community. They said the community has assessed that Al Qaida, isolated in northwestern Pakistan, would not reemerge in Afghanistan, even under a Taliban regime.
"The United States has imposed attrition on Al Qaida, disrupting its command, control and communications and isolating it," George Friedman, a U.S. strategist and director of Stratfor, said in a report. "To avoid penetration by hostile intelligence services, Al Qaida has not recruited new cadres for its primary unit. This makes it very difficult to develop intelligence on Al Qaida, but it also makes it impossible for Al Qaida to replace its losses."
Still, Saudi Arabia has been concerned over any reconciliation between Al Qaida and the United States. The sources said Saudi King Abdullah fears that Obama's effort would legitimize Al Qaida and bolster its status in the Gulf Arab kingdom.
"Calling for a dialogue with Al Qaida alone is evidence of the extent of our shortsightedness and our failure to understand what is more of a threat to us than to the West," Tariq Al Homayed, editor of the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat daily, said. "What we need is to tackle the threat posed by Al Qaida's ideology rather than Al Qaida members."
Al Homayed, said to be close to the Saudi leadership, envisioned a contest among Arab states to sponsor an Al Qaida-U.S. reconciliation conference. He urged the Saudi leadership to clearly oppose such an effort.
"Interaction with Washington and Obama is important, especially with regards to what concerns us," Al Homayed wrote in an editorial. "But if our reactions are going to resemble those that are mentioned above, then this will be frustrating, not for Washington, but for us, the people of the region who are hoping for a better future."
END OF QUOTED MATERIAL
WOW
Is Obama guilty of sedition? Is he dumb enough to think that Al Qaida might be honest and up front with him? What would be gained since all the serious jihadis would just leave Al Qaida for other organizations?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
"I Won"
Obama: "I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."
What he won is the office from which to attempt to accomplish what he wants. Does Barack think that his having been elected president gives him automatic victory in every congressional vote? What is wrong with this man? Is he as ignorant of American history as this remark implies? I tend to think not but I'm still waiting for evidence.
As for him instructing us to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, I bet Rush can't believe his good fortune in getting so much free PR.
What he won is the office from which to attempt to accomplish what he wants. Does Barack think that his having been elected president gives him automatic victory in every congressional vote? What is wrong with this man? Is he as ignorant of American history as this remark implies? I tend to think not but I'm still waiting for evidence.
As for him instructing us to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, I bet Rush can't believe his good fortune in getting so much free PR.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Do I Beat Up on Obama ? ?
I have certainly given much more space to criticism of Obama than criticism of McCain. I feel that Obama is a greater threat to the republic. And, even though I'm not so crazy about McCain, I feel that he would make a better president. Also there is so much difference between rhetoric and substance with Obama that he is a natural magnet of criticism. It would not be inaccurate to say that Obama is 99% rhetoric and 1% substance.
Obama and Censorship
This is a post from Verum Serum (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=2339) from today.
Obama: Republic or Empire? (Update)
John on August 28, 2008
There’s a broad definition of censorship which goes something like this:
Action taken to prevent others from having access to a book or information; a public objection to words, subjects and/or information in books, films, and other media with the idea of depriving others from reading or viewing them.
Personally, I prefer a slightly tighter definition, one that includes the fact that real censorship is usually the action of government authority, like the kind of thing that happens in repressive communist regimes around the world. China censoring certain information on the internet comes to mind.
It seems to me that both definitions probably apply to the recent actions of the Obama campaign. First they tried to stop the airing of a commercial by an independent 527 group. He did this by sending threatening letters to the TV stations warning of possible justice department investigations. He then took it even further by sending a second letter calling for the prosecution of the individual who funded the ad. Which brings us up to today.
Today the Obama campaign has gone even further, trying to shout down Stanley Kurtz appearance on a radio show. Note, we’re not talking about Daily Kos here, this is the campaign organizing this (albeit with help from surrogates):
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.
“WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears,” Obama’s campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.”
“Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse,” the note said.
“It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves,” the note continued. “At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.”
Apparently, Obama’s supporters don’t like “divisive, destructive ranting” on the public airwaves. No doubt they’d prefer something along the lines of the congenial, unanimity found on Cuban state radio. Or perhaps the massaged message of Pravda.
Guess what, you nuts, this is the United States of America!
We prize freedom of speech on “the public airwaves.” Please note that they’re the public’s airwaves, not yours and not the Democratic party’s. So I’ll give you the same advice Hollywood has been giving parents for years. If you don’t like it, turn the dial.
And, hey Barack, you have some nerve using your status, money and army of lawyers to try and shut down public debate. Frankly, it says a lot about you. A man who’d turn his campaign apparatus loose on a single journalist (not having even heard what the man has to say) must have a great deal to fear.
That set at Invesco field is starting to make a lot more sense. Barack Obama isn’t running for President, he’s looking to be crowned Caesar.
Update: Read this account of the interview itself written by Guy Benson who was there:
The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions.
Obama: Republic or Empire? (Update)
John on August 28, 2008
There’s a broad definition of censorship which goes something like this:
Action taken to prevent others from having access to a book or information; a public objection to words, subjects and/or information in books, films, and other media with the idea of depriving others from reading or viewing them.
Personally, I prefer a slightly tighter definition, one that includes the fact that real censorship is usually the action of government authority, like the kind of thing that happens in repressive communist regimes around the world. China censoring certain information on the internet comes to mind.
It seems to me that both definitions probably apply to the recent actions of the Obama campaign. First they tried to stop the airing of a commercial by an independent 527 group. He did this by sending threatening letters to the TV stations warning of possible justice department investigations. He then took it even further by sending a second letter calling for the prosecution of the individual who funded the ad. Which brings us up to today.
Today the Obama campaign has gone even further, trying to shout down Stanley Kurtz appearance on a radio show. Note, we’re not talking about Daily Kos here, this is the campaign organizing this (albeit with help from surrogates):
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air.
“WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears,” Obama’s campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. “He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.”
“Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse,” the note said.
“It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves,” the note continued. “At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.”
Apparently, Obama’s supporters don’t like “divisive, destructive ranting” on the public airwaves. No doubt they’d prefer something along the lines of the congenial, unanimity found on Cuban state radio. Or perhaps the massaged message of Pravda.
Guess what, you nuts, this is the United States of America!
We prize freedom of speech on “the public airwaves.” Please note that they’re the public’s airwaves, not yours and not the Democratic party’s. So I’ll give you the same advice Hollywood has been giving parents for years. If you don’t like it, turn the dial.
And, hey Barack, you have some nerve using your status, money and army of lawyers to try and shut down public debate. Frankly, it says a lot about you. A man who’d turn his campaign apparatus loose on a single journalist (not having even heard what the man has to say) must have a great deal to fear.
That set at Invesco field is starting to make a lot more sense. Barack Obama isn’t running for President, he’s looking to be crowned Caesar.
Update: Read this account of the interview itself written by Guy Benson who was there:
The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions.
When Obama Says "No Change" It Means "Major Change Coming"
I reproduced the complete post from someone named Tuari that appeared today on HotAir.com (link at left) because it gives a succinct argument why Barack Obama's attack on Sarah Palin is wrong.
I just heard that Obama released a new ad saying that the Palin choice means “no change”. I’m going through an exercise in futility in trying to figure out exactly what Obama defines “change” as. Palin is a HUGE change in the government as a whole in practically every regard. She’s anti-govt corruption, anti-big spending, for morality, for family, pro-country. The only thing I can come up with is that Obama’s “change” is just the opposite of those. His record does show that pretty well too. I always gave libs the benefit of the doubt, I mean who would want to be against freedom, family, country, but I guess they really are pro corruption (Obama and his associates and deals, saying whatever gets you elected instead of standing by your convictions), big spending (raising taxes, adding tons of heavy govt programs), anti-US (His pastor, his and his wife’s various speeches and Freudian slips), anti-family (having children is a burden). It’s quite scary that’s the “change” they can believe in. Makes you wonder if there’s something in the water.
Tuari
I just heard that Obama released a new ad saying that the Palin choice means “no change”. I’m going through an exercise in futility in trying to figure out exactly what Obama defines “change” as. Palin is a HUGE change in the government as a whole in practically every regard. She’s anti-govt corruption, anti-big spending, for morality, for family, pro-country. The only thing I can come up with is that Obama’s “change” is just the opposite of those. His record does show that pretty well too. I always gave libs the benefit of the doubt, I mean who would want to be against freedom, family, country, but I guess they really are pro corruption (Obama and his associates and deals, saying whatever gets you elected instead of standing by your convictions), big spending (raising taxes, adding tons of heavy govt programs), anti-US (His pastor, his and his wife’s various speeches and Freudian slips), anti-family (having children is a burden). It’s quite scary that’s the “change” they can believe in. Makes you wonder if there’s something in the water.
Tuari
Monday, July 28, 2008
Backbencher to World Leader in Just 5 Days
Most all of the reporters on the Sunday morning talking head shows pronounced Obama’s world tour a great success. Excuse me while I feign surprise. I think there was a reporter from Weehauken who had one or two negative thoughts while on the trip but the MSM has been pretty successful in covering that up and the guy will soon be working at Burger King. One of the first spots in a reeducation camp has been reserved for this slimeball as soon as Obama approves the results of the November elections and inaugurates himself in January.
Yes, it was a monumentally successful trip. The man who thinks there are more than 57 states in the United States learned everything needed to become a world leader in 5 days. Very impressive considering he even took time off for basketball and working out in the gym. It is a good thing he didn’t visit the troops in Germany since that would have deprived Barack and the benighted world of the time necessary for the great transformation. Legend has it that it took FDR months to become a great world leader. Winston Churchill had to spend seven weeks learning what it takes to be a great conquering hero. But these are mere mortals and everyone know I’m just being silly comparing them to a real leader like Barack. They are such sad creatures by comparison. Barack would have understood that the real focus of WW II was Pearl Harbor. He would not have been duped into sending troops much beyond Honolulu .
Sarcasm aside, what was so great and wonderful about Obama’s trip? Someone else booked all of the reservations and did most of the packing. Someone else told him it was time to leave and lead him by the hand to the airplane. Other people lead him by the hand to the meetings and events that someone other than him had scheduled and arranged. Now if the guy could have done all of the planning himself and flown coach from the regular terminal and gone through the same security as everyone else, I might get ready to be impressed. But I can’t muster respect for someone who wants to be POTUS but avoids reporters, avoids answering honest questions about real issues and avoids debate. What is he trying to hide? (You might get an idea of some answers to this by reading this blog a couple of months ago, when I first started writing about him.) When he does talk to reporters he doesn’t answer the questions they ask.: he keeps repeating talking points with little relation to the questions. Robert Novak recently wondered why Obama can’t get to 50% in spite of all of the forces working for him. Maybe it is because Americans look at the interviews and say, “I’m not going to vote for someone who won’t give a straight answer to an honest and important question.” Just maybe.
Yes, it was a monumentally successful trip. The man who thinks there are more than 57 states in the United States learned everything needed to become a world leader in 5 days. Very impressive considering he even took time off for basketball and working out in the gym. It is a good thing he didn’t visit the troops in Germany since that would have deprived Barack and the benighted world of the time necessary for the great transformation. Legend has it that it took FDR months to become a great world leader. Winston Churchill had to spend seven weeks learning what it takes to be a great conquering hero. But these are mere mortals and everyone know I’m just being silly comparing them to a real leader like Barack. They are such sad creatures by comparison. Barack would have understood that the real focus of WW II was Pearl Harbor. He would not have been duped into sending troops much beyond Honolulu .
Sarcasm aside, what was so great and wonderful about Obama’s trip? Someone else booked all of the reservations and did most of the packing. Someone else told him it was time to leave and lead him by the hand to the airplane. Other people lead him by the hand to the meetings and events that someone other than him had scheduled and arranged. Now if the guy could have done all of the planning himself and flown coach from the regular terminal and gone through the same security as everyone else, I might get ready to be impressed. But I can’t muster respect for someone who wants to be POTUS but avoids reporters, avoids answering honest questions about real issues and avoids debate. What is he trying to hide? (You might get an idea of some answers to this by reading this blog a couple of months ago, when I first started writing about him.) When he does talk to reporters he doesn’t answer the questions they ask.: he keeps repeating talking points with little relation to the questions. Robert Novak recently wondered why Obama can’t get to 50% in spite of all of the forces working for him. Maybe it is because Americans look at the interviews and say, “I’m not going to vote for someone who won’t give a straight answer to an honest and important question.” Just maybe.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
200,000 ? ? ?
I watched some coverage of the Obama speech in Berlin last week. The crowd was reported to be around 200,000 people. And I find that hard to believe. I watched some of the TV coverage of the event. There were few pictures of the crowd. And most views of the crowd were from angles that made it difficult to get an idea of the crowd as a whole: it was a series of tight shots of packed groups of a hundred or so. And when the crowd was shown it was always for an extremely short time: as if someone had something to hide. I froze a few shots and the crowd was sparse and did not stretch very far. These quickly panned-by shots that I froze showed a different picture than the few shots that were shown to prove the 200,000 estimate. The MSM showed very little footage of the crowd. I believe that, if the crowd had actually been anywhere near 200,000, we would have been getting round the clock replays of crowd scenes from ALL angles from the MSM. And we would not have been subjected to so much of that speech that was high on borrowed rhetoric and low on meaning.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Berlin Speech
Barack Obama gave a speech in Berlin earlier this week to 200,000 people (though I've seen estimates for the crowd as low as 20,000, but the lower estimate is not from the part of the media that gave lots of money to the Democratic party). This is a large excerpt from an article in the Weekly Standard about the speech by Andrew Ferguson.
Obama's "nothing" is sometimes interesting anyway; there are pointers in the vacuousness, as I saw when I read the full text on his campaign's website. He began the speech, as he often does, with a summary of his own life history, which elided into a history of the Cold War--mixing the two together, with his customary grandiosity. The history was nicely written up but not news. And the lesson he drew from it was, to be kind, idiosyncratic: The West's victory in the Cold War, he said, proved that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
This will come as a surprise to anyone who lived through the Cold War or has even read about it. The thing about wars, even cold ones, is that the world doesn't stand as one; that's why there's a war. And in the Cold War the Soviet side was as united as the West; more so, probably. Left out of Obama's history was any mention of the ferocious demonstrations against the United States in the streets of Paris and West Berlin during the 1960s and 1980s, when American presidents were routinely depicted as priapic cowboys and psychopaths. Probably a fair number of the older members of Obama's audience had been hoisting those banners themselves 25 years ago.
So if "standing as one" didn't win the Cold War, what did? Obama didn't stop to answer, since his own reading of history seems to deny the premise of the question. Instead he hustled on to the present moment. Now, he said, "we are called upon again." To do what? Presumably to stand as one all over again, in the face of "new promise and new peril." Included in the latter are terrorism, global warming, and nuclear proliferation. But those perils aren't the worst of it. "The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."
The sentence is the heart of the speech and an instance of Obama's big weakness--his preference for the rhetorical flourish over a realistic account of things as they are. Most politicians share the weakness, and the preference has proved wildly attractive to Obama's supporters. But think it through: "New walls to divide us" is just a metaphor, a trope. A trope can't be the "greatest danger of all." A terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in London--that's a danger. A revolution in Islamabad--that's a danger. A figure of speech is just a figure of speech.
And what will Obama have us do to avoid those nonmetaphorical dangers? He declined to get specific, aside from urging us to "answer the call." Floating along on a cloud of metaphor and generality allows Obama to do what he wants to do, in the Berlin speech and elsewhere. As a public figure he means to rise
It doesn't matter that human affairs never work out this way, no more in domestic politics than in foreign policy. The assumption that they do is what lends so many of Obama's utterances their greeting-card simplicity and appeal. The effect is almost soporific: "America cannot turn inward," he says. Check. "Now is the time to build new bridges." All set to go. "We must defeat terror." True dat. "Every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday." Roger. "We must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East." Go ahead: Argue.
To pump a little vigor into his limp sentiments, Obama attached them to a hypnotic refrain. "This is the moment," he said in Berlin, repeatedly. But where's the urgency come from? What's the rush? In the long train of platitudes he suggested no discrete, definable policy that needed to be adopted urgently, beyond his call to unity, which isn't a policy but an aspiration. You get the idea that the urgency doesn't arise from an assessment of reality but from a rhetorical need. He's got to keep the folks on their toes somehow.
Obama couldn't come to Berlin and deliver a speech full of portent, as Reagan and Kennedy did before him, and as his publicists suggested he might. For all the talk about this being our time and us being the people, Obama shows no sign of really believing we live in portentous times. This is surely part of his appeal. It's not surprising that when he came to Berlin and said nothing at all, none of his admirers seemed disappointed. After eight years of overheated history, nothing comes as a relief.
Obama's "nothing" is sometimes interesting anyway; there are pointers in the vacuousness, as I saw when I read the full text on his campaign's website. He began the speech, as he often does, with a summary of his own life history, which elided into a history of the Cold War--mixing the two together, with his customary grandiosity. The history was nicely written up but not news. And the lesson he drew from it was, to be kind, idiosyncratic: The West's victory in the Cold War, he said, proved that "there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
This will come as a surprise to anyone who lived through the Cold War or has even read about it. The thing about wars, even cold ones, is that the world doesn't stand as one; that's why there's a war. And in the Cold War the Soviet side was as united as the West; more so, probably. Left out of Obama's history was any mention of the ferocious demonstrations against the United States in the streets of Paris and West Berlin during the 1960s and 1980s, when American presidents were routinely depicted as priapic cowboys and psychopaths. Probably a fair number of the older members of Obama's audience had been hoisting those banners themselves 25 years ago.
So if "standing as one" didn't win the Cold War, what did? Obama didn't stop to answer, since his own reading of history seems to deny the premise of the question. Instead he hustled on to the present moment. Now, he said, "we are called upon again." To do what? Presumably to stand as one all over again, in the face of "new promise and new peril." Included in the latter are terrorism, global warming, and nuclear proliferation. But those perils aren't the worst of it. "The greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another."
The sentence is the heart of the speech and an instance of Obama's big weakness--his preference for the rhetorical flourish over a realistic account of things as they are. Most politicians share the weakness, and the preference has proved wildly attractive to Obama's supporters. But think it through: "New walls to divide us" is just a metaphor, a trope. A trope can't be the "greatest danger of all." A terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb in London--that's a danger. A revolution in Islamabad--that's a danger. A figure of speech is just a figure of speech.
And what will Obama have us do to avoid those nonmetaphorical dangers? He declined to get specific, aside from urging us to "answer the call." Floating along on a cloud of metaphor and generality allows Obama to do what he wants to do, in the Berlin speech and elsewhere. As a public figure he means to rise
It doesn't matter that human affairs never work out this way, no more in domestic politics than in foreign policy. The assumption that they do is what lends so many of Obama's utterances their greeting-card simplicity and appeal. The effect is almost soporific: "America cannot turn inward," he says. Check. "Now is the time to build new bridges." All set to go. "We must defeat terror." True dat. "Every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday." Roger. "We must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East." Go ahead: Argue.
To pump a little vigor into his limp sentiments, Obama attached them to a hypnotic refrain. "This is the moment," he said in Berlin, repeatedly. But where's the urgency come from? What's the rush? In the long train of platitudes he suggested no discrete, definable policy that needed to be adopted urgently, beyond his call to unity, which isn't a policy but an aspiration. You get the idea that the urgency doesn't arise from an assessment of reality but from a rhetorical need. He's got to keep the folks on their toes somehow.
Obama couldn't come to Berlin and deliver a speech full of portent, as Reagan and Kennedy did before him, and as his publicists suggested he might. For all the talk about this being our time and us being the people, Obama shows no sign of really believing we live in portentous times. This is surely part of his appeal. It's not surprising that when he came to Berlin and said nothing at all, none of his admirers seemed disappointed. After eight years of overheated history, nothing comes as a relief.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone
"Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama’s old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission."
This is from a story in The New Republic by Gabriel Sherman dated 7-24-08. I picked it up from a post by Allahpundit on Hotair.com (link at left).
This is from a story in The New Republic by Gabriel Sherman dated 7-24-08. I picked it up from a post by Allahpundit on Hotair.com (link at left).
The Times of London on Europe Being Blessed by a Visit from B. Obama
From The Times July 25, 2008
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the
Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.
He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers
Gerard Baker
And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.
The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?”
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the
Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.
And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.
The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for.
And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.
Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.
But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.
And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: “Yes, We Can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
