Kathy Shaidle regales us with the Six Stupidest Conspiracy Theories Most Muslims Believe.
Stop by Kathy's blog, FiveFeetofFury whenever possible. It's awesome, and a lot of fun.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Professor Hanson: National Treausre...
Just read it.
If you ever needed a clearer explanation of just why President Obama just doesn't get "IT", here it is.
If you ever needed a clearer explanation of just why President Obama just doesn't get "IT", here it is.
Taliban Honcho: "Why negotiate? We're Winning..."
Okay, so the source is (P)MSNBC -- take it with a grain of salt -- but, yeah, I happen to agree with this walking pile of dirty laundry with a beard. The Pentagon's insistence notwithstanding, we're not "winning"in Afghanistan -- not by the metrics we're using to tally victories.
Hamid Karzai isn't a very popular man. He wasn't when we installed him -- basically, it was at gunpoint -- in the Presidency, and he didn't magically become any more popular as we looked the other way at his alleged corruption. First forgotten lesson of Vietnam: you can't "promote democracy" in a land with no history of democratic institutions when the government you've created for them doesn't do it's duty without regard for the law, or even a set of ethics. It makes democracy look bad, and people are unable to identify any differences between the previous autocratic government and the current corrupt one.
Except for the Purple Thumbs, of course.
These people don't value the concepts of "freedom" and"democracy" because they don't know what any of that jazz is, what it's good for, or how it's supposed to be used. For most of these guys , the ability to continue life as it is -- the right to rape your goats, beat your wives with impunity, and carry an AK-47 -- is about all they want out of life (under different circumstances, these guys would probably be right at home in rural Mississippi or Appalachia). They don't see the value in any system of thought or government that threatens this state of affairs, assuming they understand anything that doesn't go "BOOM!".
It also doesn't help when the Secretary of State and the President have pretty much told the world that Karzai is a bastard, but well, he's our bastard, and we're stuck with him. That fact, probably more than any other, has given the Afghan opposition, especially the Taliban, hope.
Second forgotten lesson of Vietnam: it isn't enough to just kill the enemy in the field. You need to break his morale, and his will and means to continue fighting. This means inflicting inhuman suffering upon your enemy. Predator drone strikes just don't cut it. Until the greater mass of the people in the Northwest Frontier are starving to death, reduced to drinking from mud puddles, eating grubs andbits of undigested vegetable matter from animal dung, covered in suppurating sores, in constant physical pain and discomfort, and see their children dying for lack of the basic necessities, the Taliban will continue to exist.
Since this inhuman suffering is the natural state of affairs in this part of the world, it might,perhaps, be beyond our capabilities to make life measurably worse, in any meaningful sense, for anyone.
The third forgotten lesson of Vietnam: you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back when you allow your enemy unfettered access to weapons and material support from a third-party. Anyone who believes Pakistan is a dedicated ally of this country is taking mind-altering drugs. The Pakistanis created the Taliban, after all, and it is some elements within the Pakistani government which are rearming, funding and providing intelligence to the Taliban, not to mention giving them haven in the Northwest Frontier.
Pakistan merely goes through the motions of fighting terrorism, because the military aid that flows from America to Islamabad is what keeps the ruling elite in their position, and the economic aid we provide is what keeps what passes for a Pakistani economy from completely collapsing, and creating a second Afghanistan...only with nukes.
So, yeah, if I were the Taliban, and the Americans cannot a) show that democracy is something Afghans should get on board with, b) inflict enough damage/suffering upon the Taliban and their supporters to get them to rethink the validity of their cause, and c) get Pakistan to be an honest partner in this fight, no matter how much we bribe them, then, yeah, I would say "I'm winning", too.
They only have to wait out US public opinion. We have to actually fight. They're doing their part, we're pretending to do ours, and our servicemen have been paying the price for this pussyfooting-about strategy. Mark my words: General Petreus, before this year is up, will ask the President for more troops for Afghanistan, and insist that we're thisclose to "victory", while trying to make the case that American withdrawal in 2011 (as scheduled) would deprive the US of a well-deserved victory that otherwise cannot justify the sacrifices in blood already made.
And Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, will fall for it hook-line-and-sinker. Victory in Afghanistan in a conventional sense, is impossible. Victory can only be measured in human suffering, and it is exactly that level of suffering that the US Military, as deadly and efficient a force as it is, cannot generate. In fact, it strenuously tries to avoid killing anyone it doesn't have to, and provides food, schools, roads, sanitation and electricity to people who are only one incident removed from changing sides -- which is the Afghan national past time, anyway.
The fourth forgotten lesson of Vietnam: you can't keep tying an elusive "victory" to regular requests for more of everything. Every time you ask for more men, you're not inspiring confidence that you can, indeed, win. Westmoreland was sure he was winning, too...but somehow, he kept finding himself asking for more and more troops. That victory he kept talking about was always pushed back a bit further until he got them. Eventually, he had half-a-million troops under his command, and even when he did win great victories (Khe Sahn, Tet, Hue), he somehow managed to still lose.
Anyways, lovely bit of revisionist history here:
"Look, the Americans call us terrorists; what terrorist act did we ever commit? They traveled 10,000 miles to us and forced us to wage jihad against the Russians, who were their enemies, and now they are waging a war against us. We are Afghans and Afghanistan is our country. All we want is for the Americans to leave us alone; only then will there be peace in Afghanistan."
Until they start fighting each other over who gets to molest the donkeys, of course. Yeah, we forced them to fight the Russians...asshat.
Hamid Karzai isn't a very popular man. He wasn't when we installed him -- basically, it was at gunpoint -- in the Presidency, and he didn't magically become any more popular as we looked the other way at his alleged corruption. First forgotten lesson of Vietnam: you can't "promote democracy" in a land with no history of democratic institutions when the government you've created for them doesn't do it's duty without regard for the law, or even a set of ethics. It makes democracy look bad, and people are unable to identify any differences between the previous autocratic government and the current corrupt one.
Except for the Purple Thumbs, of course.
These people don't value the concepts of "freedom" and"democracy" because they don't know what any of that jazz is, what it's good for, or how it's supposed to be used. For most of these guys , the ability to continue life as it is -- the right to rape your goats, beat your wives with impunity, and carry an AK-47 -- is about all they want out of life (under different circumstances, these guys would probably be right at home in rural Mississippi or Appalachia). They don't see the value in any system of thought or government that threatens this state of affairs, assuming they understand anything that doesn't go "BOOM!".
It also doesn't help when the Secretary of State and the President have pretty much told the world that Karzai is a bastard, but well, he's our bastard, and we're stuck with him. That fact, probably more than any other, has given the Afghan opposition, especially the Taliban, hope.
Second forgotten lesson of Vietnam: it isn't enough to just kill the enemy in the field. You need to break his morale, and his will and means to continue fighting. This means inflicting inhuman suffering upon your enemy. Predator drone strikes just don't cut it. Until the greater mass of the people in the Northwest Frontier are starving to death, reduced to drinking from mud puddles, eating grubs andbits of undigested vegetable matter from animal dung, covered in suppurating sores, in constant physical pain and discomfort, and see their children dying for lack of the basic necessities, the Taliban will continue to exist.
Since this inhuman suffering is the natural state of affairs in this part of the world, it might,perhaps, be beyond our capabilities to make life measurably worse, in any meaningful sense, for anyone.
The third forgotten lesson of Vietnam: you're fighting with one hand tied behind your back when you allow your enemy unfettered access to weapons and material support from a third-party. Anyone who believes Pakistan is a dedicated ally of this country is taking mind-altering drugs. The Pakistanis created the Taliban, after all, and it is some elements within the Pakistani government which are rearming, funding and providing intelligence to the Taliban, not to mention giving them haven in the Northwest Frontier.
Pakistan merely goes through the motions of fighting terrorism, because the military aid that flows from America to Islamabad is what keeps the ruling elite in their position, and the economic aid we provide is what keeps what passes for a Pakistani economy from completely collapsing, and creating a second Afghanistan...only with nukes.
So, yeah, if I were the Taliban, and the Americans cannot a) show that democracy is something Afghans should get on board with, b) inflict enough damage/suffering upon the Taliban and their supporters to get them to rethink the validity of their cause, and c) get Pakistan to be an honest partner in this fight, no matter how much we bribe them, then, yeah, I would say "I'm winning", too.
They only have to wait out US public opinion. We have to actually fight. They're doing their part, we're pretending to do ours, and our servicemen have been paying the price for this pussyfooting-about strategy. Mark my words: General Petreus, before this year is up, will ask the President for more troops for Afghanistan, and insist that we're thisclose to "victory", while trying to make the case that American withdrawal in 2011 (as scheduled) would deprive the US of a well-deserved victory that otherwise cannot justify the sacrifices in blood already made.
And Obama, like Lyndon Johnson, will fall for it hook-line-and-sinker. Victory in Afghanistan in a conventional sense, is impossible. Victory can only be measured in human suffering, and it is exactly that level of suffering that the US Military, as deadly and efficient a force as it is, cannot generate. In fact, it strenuously tries to avoid killing anyone it doesn't have to, and provides food, schools, roads, sanitation and electricity to people who are only one incident removed from changing sides -- which is the Afghan national past time, anyway.
The fourth forgotten lesson of Vietnam: you can't keep tying an elusive "victory" to regular requests for more of everything. Every time you ask for more men, you're not inspiring confidence that you can, indeed, win. Westmoreland was sure he was winning, too...but somehow, he kept finding himself asking for more and more troops. That victory he kept talking about was always pushed back a bit further until he got them. Eventually, he had half-a-million troops under his command, and even when he did win great victories (Khe Sahn, Tet, Hue), he somehow managed to still lose.
Anyways, lovely bit of revisionist history here:
"Look, the Americans call us terrorists; what terrorist act did we ever commit? They traveled 10,000 miles to us and forced us to wage jihad against the Russians, who were their enemies, and now they are waging a war against us. We are Afghans and Afghanistan is our country. All we want is for the Americans to leave us alone; only then will there be peace in Afghanistan."
Until they start fighting each other over who gets to molest the donkeys, of course. Yeah, we forced them to fight the Russians...asshat.
No 34 Warships?
The other day, I posted this based on an Indian news source that claimed President Odouchebag's trip is costing the American taxpayer $200 million a day, and will require the redeployment of an entire fleet. I was not the only blogger to run with that, so I don't feel completely stupid.
Well...this might not be exactly true. People all over the intertoobies have been "debunking" this "rumor" all weekend.
Still, you have to wonder:
1. Why the strongest denials come from U.S. government sources (i.e. The Pentagon, which is laboring under the false impression that it's "winning in Afghanistan", and probably doesn't confirm any movement of warships as a matter of security policy). Even if $200 million is a wildly-exaggerated figure, you'd think someone other the government would report what the trip is really costing. Like the New York Times, or something.
Oh, wait...they're too busy preparing their pre-written hit pieces in preparation for a Palin 2012 run. No time to investigate anything as silly as the cost of a Presidential overseas visit.
2. Why the Indian press should find it necessary to lie and/or exaggerate about this? Some might say that by concocting this elaborate scheme to exaggerate the cost/scope of Obama's visit, the Indians are either engaging in a simple act of chest-beating, or perhaps trying to send some sort of "diplomatic" message to Pakistan and China along the lines of "look how badly the Americans want to be our friends! See how important we are!"
However, I haven't heard a single talking head speak about this all weekend. Haven't read a thing about it, either.
However, what if the Indian press was simply confused? What if they meant 200 million rupees, and not dollars (have no idea how much that is in real money, can't be bothered to find out)? If they're confused, how did they get that way? After all, isn't it the White House or State Department who gives out that sort of information?
3. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has no credibility...on anything. When he says the numbers are inflated (number of people, number of hotel rooms, number of warships, prices, etc.), I'm inclined to be sceptical. That's just what happens to a man's reputation when you're a known liar, who works for an even bigger known liar.
Update: I can't wait to hear the explanation for this: Obama's personal Bombproof tunnel,specially-made for his Ghandi museum visit.
Well...this might not be exactly true. People all over the intertoobies have been "debunking" this "rumor" all weekend.
Still, you have to wonder:
1. Why the strongest denials come from U.S. government sources (i.e. The Pentagon, which is laboring under the false impression that it's "winning in Afghanistan", and probably doesn't confirm any movement of warships as a matter of security policy). Even if $200 million is a wildly-exaggerated figure, you'd think someone other the government would report what the trip is really costing. Like the New York Times, or something.
Oh, wait...they're too busy preparing their pre-written hit pieces in preparation for a Palin 2012 run. No time to investigate anything as silly as the cost of a Presidential overseas visit.
2. Why the Indian press should find it necessary to lie and/or exaggerate about this? Some might say that by concocting this elaborate scheme to exaggerate the cost/scope of Obama's visit, the Indians are either engaging in a simple act of chest-beating, or perhaps trying to send some sort of "diplomatic" message to Pakistan and China along the lines of "look how badly the Americans want to be our friends! See how important we are!"
However, I haven't heard a single talking head speak about this all weekend. Haven't read a thing about it, either.
However, what if the Indian press was simply confused? What if they meant 200 million rupees, and not dollars (have no idea how much that is in real money, can't be bothered to find out)? If they're confused, how did they get that way? After all, isn't it the White House or State Department who gives out that sort of information?
3. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has no credibility...on anything. When he says the numbers are inflated (number of people, number of hotel rooms, number of warships, prices, etc.), I'm inclined to be sceptical. That's just what happens to a man's reputation when you're a known liar, who works for an even bigger known liar.
Update: I can't wait to hear the explanation for this: Obama's personal Bombproof tunnel,specially-made for his Ghandi museum visit.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Fort Hood: One Year On...
Today is the first anniversary of the Fort Hood Massacre.
Thirteen people were killed. Thirty more were wounded. By a lunatic crackpot who took advantage of everything this country had to offer him, and then had the unmitigated gall to turn on it, murdering his fellow soldiers and citizens in the process.
Nidal Hasan, their killer, is still alive. He has government-funded attorneys defending him, and the government is picking up the tab for his medical care.
The "cleric" who inspired Hasan to commit mass murder, Anwar Al 'Awlaki, who also inspired the Jock Strap Jihadist (i.e. The Underwear Bomber, also still alive), the would-be Times Square Bomber (also still breathing), and three of the 9/11 Hijackers, is still alive.
Why? Why aren't these men dead, and the culture that spawned them reduced to a very bad, and smouldering, memory? When are we going to demand that a War on Terror actually means WAR and not judges and juries?
When we will finally discover that Political Correctness, of the sort that protected Nidal Hasan and advanced his career, can actually kill? When will we finally get the cojones to kick this Fifth Column in Dirty Laundry out of the country?
Thirteen people were killed. Thirty more were wounded. By a lunatic crackpot who took advantage of everything this country had to offer him, and then had the unmitigated gall to turn on it, murdering his fellow soldiers and citizens in the process.
Nidal Hasan, their killer, is still alive. He has government-funded attorneys defending him, and the government is picking up the tab for his medical care.
The "cleric" who inspired Hasan to commit mass murder, Anwar Al 'Awlaki, who also inspired the Jock Strap Jihadist (i.e. The Underwear Bomber, also still alive), the would-be Times Square Bomber (also still breathing), and three of the 9/11 Hijackers, is still alive.
Why? Why aren't these men dead, and the culture that spawned them reduced to a very bad, and smouldering, memory? When are we going to demand that a War on Terror actually means WAR and not judges and juries?
When we will finally discover that Political Correctness, of the sort that protected Nidal Hasan and advanced his career, can actually kill? When will we finally get the cojones to kick this Fifth Column in Dirty Laundry out of the country?
Are GOP Leaders Going Too Far in Their Criticism of Obama?
If you asked me, I'd not only say "No", but "Fuck NO".
Obama deserves all the criticism he gets. It comes with the job, especially when you screw it up. Assuming you aren't on vacation for a year,and not doing the job at all.
But here's the really strange part about this article:
"Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has been even tougher. He’s called for the party to focus on defeating Mr. Obama in two years – a statement some have found "indelicate," he said Thursday."
When did it become unfair, let alone"indelicate", for a republican to speak openly about defeating a democrat in an election? Who are these people who find this objectionable, and can we forcibly ssterilize them before they breed?
Obama deserves all the criticism he gets. It comes with the job, especially when you screw it up. Assuming you aren't on vacation for a year,and not doing the job at all.
But here's the really strange part about this article:
"Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has been even tougher. He’s called for the party to focus on defeating Mr. Obama in two years – a statement some have found "indelicate," he said Thursday."
When did it become unfair, let alone"indelicate", for a republican to speak openly about defeating a democrat in an election? Who are these people who find this objectionable, and can we forcibly ssterilize them before they breed?
Pot, Meet Kettle...
Mayor Mind-Everyone's-Business says Obama "the most arrogant man I've ever met".
This is just too rich. You can't make this shit up.
Rumor in this neck of the woods is that Bloomberg is thinking about running for President in 2012. Let me go on record now as saying that I would vote for for Obama's soon-to-be-announced Anthrax-for-Old-Appliances stimulus program than for Bloomberg. I would vote for mandatory lunch-hour ass-rape before I put Bloomberg in the White House. I would voluntarily eat feces-and-powdered-glass-covered razor blades before I see Micheal Bloomberg take the Presidential Oath of Office.
Michael Bloomberg needs to go back to running his multi-billion dollar media empire, and leave the public stage forever.
Oh, and then he needs to STFU.
This is just too rich. You can't make this shit up.
Rumor in this neck of the woods is that Bloomberg is thinking about running for President in 2012. Let me go on record now as saying that I would vote for for Obama's soon-to-be-announced Anthrax-for-Old-Appliances stimulus program than for Bloomberg. I would vote for mandatory lunch-hour ass-rape before I put Bloomberg in the White House. I would voluntarily eat feces-and-powdered-glass-covered razor blades before I see Micheal Bloomberg take the Presidential Oath of Office.
Michael Bloomberg needs to go back to running his multi-billion dollar media empire, and leave the public stage forever.
Oh, and then he needs to STFU.
A Picture Paints a Thousand Words...
And he still can't figure out why his party got it's ass kicked Tuesday night?It's All Rahm's Fault...
Richard Wolffe in the Daily Beast writes that the general consensus now is that democrats (small 'd' intentional) got their asses kicked because of...Rahm Emanuel.
I can almost promise you that White House aides are already lining up to publish their"tell-all" books. On January 20, 2013, not thirty seconds after the Obamatard is shown the door, the "True Story of the Obama Administration, by an Insider" books will start to hit the shelves.
And they'll all say the same things: Obama was an arrogant, stupid, stubborn, bigoted, jerk in love with the sound of his own voice, Michelle was a fur-breasted, imperial, hellion who harassed and terrorized the White House Staff. Bo the Dog shit in every corner of the White House, and dug up the remains of Jimmy Hoffa on the South Lawn.
The "heroes" in these books will be the Rahm Emanuels, the "old hand" Washingtonian set that tried mightily to advise President Odingbat not to pursue this or that policy, who tried to "restrain" the President so as to stave off mid-term electoral defeat, but he just wouldn't listen to them. These books always follow the same format; Obama failed because he didn't listen to us elitist jerks who half the time kissed his ass -- his willing slaves and hitmen -- and who treated his every utterance as if it were the Word of God, itself.
The truth will be closer to something along the lines that they worshiped the stupid bastard, and could not refuse his will, regardless of how retarded or dangerous the policy might have been. Those "insider" types are less noble public servants and more professional sycophants, and they probably often adopted the very same arrogance and stupidity in their dealings with underlings that they'll accuse the Obamas of.
Rahm Emanuel was once considered a fucking genius; now he's a traitor to the cause of the democratic party, and Obama the fallen icon. Go figure.
Democrats take heed; this is, in part, why you lost. You're wedded to the Cult of Personality, and unfortunately for this country, the Personalities you adore are often complete fucktards. Obama was swept into office on a wave of mixed adoration and desperation, and then he failed to correctly divine just what the nation's priorities should have been. Instead of tackling problems in a logical fashion -- one at a time, and with some set of priorities -- and crafting policies to handle them, he went off on a scattershot program of broad-brush-platitude non-priorities, with the details left to be worked out largely by Congress.
Rahm Emanuel is a petty douche, with a nasty streak five-miles wide. He's not a genius, he's a self-centered, overbearing bully, an apparatchik with aloud voice and a fearsome demeanor that probably hides the fact that he has a very small penis, and that he's still mad at his parents for forcing him to take ballet lessons. Washington is just chock full of pussies who are susceptible to being strong-armed by a personality like that. But, before you blame Rahm for abandoning ship, and pinning the approbation for everything that went wrong on him, consider this:
When people needed jobs, we got ObamaCare. Passed by Congress by unconstitutional means, with open bribery of Congresscritters and Senators (The Louisiana Purchase, The Cornhusker Kickback), basically in front of television cameras.
When people needed a sense that someone who understood their problems was in charge, we got Cash-for-Clunkers, and a steady diet of boilerplate libtard Class Warfare.
When the people needed a sense that the future was going to be better than today, and someone to provide that sense of optimism, we got Michelle's Healthy Eating bullshit.
We got a President who spent 15 months flogging an unnecessary Health care nationalization plan disguised as "reform" --- and then 6 months on Vacation.
When the country needed policies that would revitalize the economic base, we got cash giveaways to mortgage defaulters, temporary tax credits to buy houses that would soon go into default, a lot of talk about wind and solar power, and GM shareholders ripped off so as to reward the unions that helped bankrupt GM in the first place.
We got a situation in which the government decided when bankruptcy law applied, and when it didn't. When immigration law applied, and when it didn't.
We got a nearly-$800-billion stimulus program that stimulated nothing, and which only served to remove that money from the credit markets where it might have done more real economic good; there were no "shovel-ready" projects, there were no "jobs saved or created", there was no "transparency" about where the money went and who got it. In fact, there was no transparency to anything the Government did at all, despite promises there would be.
We got a President who regards terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. We got a President who can't tell the difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys in the world, preferring to think of everyone as sometimes-Good and sometimes-Bad, and all gray area the rest of the time. He doesn't fight terrorists; he reads them their rights and gives them trials in civilian courts. He bows to foreign potentates. His State Department sends birthday greetings to one of the world's biggest lunatics, who is obsessed with constructing a nuclear weapon with which to destroy the West. He regards Israel in the same way most would regard an enema, and then he tries to negotiate surrender to the Taliban.
We got a President who received the Nobel Prize...for being black.
We got a President who did nothing -- except sue BP, and go on vacation -- in the face of a major ecological and industrial disaster.
We have the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (Rangel) accused of tax evasion. A Sitting Senator from Massachusetts (Kerry) accused of evading taxes on his luxury yacht. A Secretary of the Treasury (Geithner) accused of Tax Evasion. A Secretary of Labor (Solis) accused of Tax Evasion. A Sitting senator from Connecticut accused of using his influence to obtain a criminally-suspect mortgage on his Irish mansion/cottage (Dodd). We have the Chairman of the House Banking Committee (Frank) accused of blocking an investigation into the financial practises of Freddie and Fannie because he may have been sleeping with their executives. There was an (alleged) lunatic gay serial sexual harasser (Massa) running around the Halls of Congress, and the Glenn Beck show, trying to explain the inexplicable, and defend the indefensible...and incomprehensible...about his alleged misdeeds. This was your democratic majority.
President Obama, who now cries for co-operation and bi-partisanship dragged the republican Congressional delegation into a room for a"discussion" of Health Care reform, deliberately dictating and bullying the minority party on television, arrogantly asserting such was his right because "I Won". This man insists that he's open to "all ideas" from the opposition party --and then doesn't listen to any. He leaves the task of governing the United States to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- two people perhaps even dumber than he -- because to take an active hand in governing just might interfere with his golf game, and pick-up basketball.
He sends the Secretary of State to Moscow with a misspelled "gag gift". The President cries that the"Old Alliances" lay in tatters, and then he sends the British Prime Minister home with cheap Wal-Mart gifts, returns a bust of Churchill, and presents the Queen with a gift of his speeches on an iPod. He tells the French President to basically go fuck himself. He makes the Prime Minister of Israel cool his heels in the White Hosue waiting room for the better part of a day -- and the refuses to meet with him. He embraces Hamid Karzai as an "ally", and then publicly hangs him out to dry in the Afghan elections. The President publicly abhors the drug-fueled, violent chaos in Mexico that is spilling over the borders of the United States, and then sues the state of Arizona for presuming to enforce federal immigration law.
The President's mantra for the last few months leading up to his election night spanking has been that we're angry, impatient, racist, stupid, mislead and misinformed. That the American people haven't grasped the benefits of his enlightened rule because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News have muddied the waters. He insists that his troubles aren't because his policies suck, but because he hasn't effectively sold them to us. If only he had another half-dozen teleprompters, he believes, he could have talked turds into gold bricks.
I'm certain I'm missing at least two dozen other examples of Obama's ineptitude, stupidity, stubbornness, petulance and lack of interest in his job. It's almost as if, having achieved an historical milestone (being the first (half-) black man elected President of the United States), the job would then do itself. That the details were unimportant. That the only thing that counted was that America was reordered in such a way as to suit the personal tastes of the Regal and August Obama -- Michelle Obama, that is, I hope she's proud of her country now -- the legalities and nicities and customs of the Realm be damned.
And Rahm Emanuel is at fault?
What are these people smoking?
I can almost promise you that White House aides are already lining up to publish their"tell-all" books. On January 20, 2013, not thirty seconds after the Obamatard is shown the door, the "True Story of the Obama Administration, by an Insider" books will start to hit the shelves.
And they'll all say the same things: Obama was an arrogant, stupid, stubborn, bigoted, jerk in love with the sound of his own voice, Michelle was a fur-breasted, imperial, hellion who harassed and terrorized the White House Staff. Bo the Dog shit in every corner of the White House, and dug up the remains of Jimmy Hoffa on the South Lawn.
The "heroes" in these books will be the Rahm Emanuels, the "old hand" Washingtonian set that tried mightily to advise President Odingbat not to pursue this or that policy, who tried to "restrain" the President so as to stave off mid-term electoral defeat, but he just wouldn't listen to them. These books always follow the same format; Obama failed because he didn't listen to us elitist jerks who half the time kissed his ass -- his willing slaves and hitmen -- and who treated his every utterance as if it were the Word of God, itself.
The truth will be closer to something along the lines that they worshiped the stupid bastard, and could not refuse his will, regardless of how retarded or dangerous the policy might have been. Those "insider" types are less noble public servants and more professional sycophants, and they probably often adopted the very same arrogance and stupidity in their dealings with underlings that they'll accuse the Obamas of.
Rahm Emanuel was once considered a fucking genius; now he's a traitor to the cause of the democratic party, and Obama the fallen icon. Go figure.
Democrats take heed; this is, in part, why you lost. You're wedded to the Cult of Personality, and unfortunately for this country, the Personalities you adore are often complete fucktards. Obama was swept into office on a wave of mixed adoration and desperation, and then he failed to correctly divine just what the nation's priorities should have been. Instead of tackling problems in a logical fashion -- one at a time, and with some set of priorities -- and crafting policies to handle them, he went off on a scattershot program of broad-brush-platitude non-priorities, with the details left to be worked out largely by Congress.
Rahm Emanuel is a petty douche, with a nasty streak five-miles wide. He's not a genius, he's a self-centered, overbearing bully, an apparatchik with aloud voice and a fearsome demeanor that probably hides the fact that he has a very small penis, and that he's still mad at his parents for forcing him to take ballet lessons. Washington is just chock full of pussies who are susceptible to being strong-armed by a personality like that. But, before you blame Rahm for abandoning ship, and pinning the approbation for everything that went wrong on him, consider this:
When people needed jobs, we got ObamaCare. Passed by Congress by unconstitutional means, with open bribery of Congresscritters and Senators (The Louisiana Purchase, The Cornhusker Kickback), basically in front of television cameras.
When people needed a sense that someone who understood their problems was in charge, we got Cash-for-Clunkers, and a steady diet of boilerplate libtard Class Warfare.
When the people needed a sense that the future was going to be better than today, and someone to provide that sense of optimism, we got Michelle's Healthy Eating bullshit.
We got a President who spent 15 months flogging an unnecessary Health care nationalization plan disguised as "reform" --- and then 6 months on Vacation.
When the country needed policies that would revitalize the economic base, we got cash giveaways to mortgage defaulters, temporary tax credits to buy houses that would soon go into default, a lot of talk about wind and solar power, and GM shareholders ripped off so as to reward the unions that helped bankrupt GM in the first place.
We got a situation in which the government decided when bankruptcy law applied, and when it didn't. When immigration law applied, and when it didn't.
We got a nearly-$800-billion stimulus program that stimulated nothing, and which only served to remove that money from the credit markets where it might have done more real economic good; there were no "shovel-ready" projects, there were no "jobs saved or created", there was no "transparency" about where the money went and who got it. In fact, there was no transparency to anything the Government did at all, despite promises there would be.
We got a President who regards terrorism as a law-enforcement problem. We got a President who can't tell the difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys in the world, preferring to think of everyone as sometimes-Good and sometimes-Bad, and all gray area the rest of the time. He doesn't fight terrorists; he reads them their rights and gives them trials in civilian courts. He bows to foreign potentates. His State Department sends birthday greetings to one of the world's biggest lunatics, who is obsessed with constructing a nuclear weapon with which to destroy the West. He regards Israel in the same way most would regard an enema, and then he tries to negotiate surrender to the Taliban.
We got a President who received the Nobel Prize...for being black.
We got a President who did nothing -- except sue BP, and go on vacation -- in the face of a major ecological and industrial disaster.
We have the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (Rangel) accused of tax evasion. A Sitting Senator from Massachusetts (Kerry) accused of evading taxes on his luxury yacht. A Secretary of the Treasury (Geithner) accused of Tax Evasion. A Secretary of Labor (Solis) accused of Tax Evasion. A Sitting senator from Connecticut accused of using his influence to obtain a criminally-suspect mortgage on his Irish mansion/cottage (Dodd). We have the Chairman of the House Banking Committee (Frank) accused of blocking an investigation into the financial practises of Freddie and Fannie because he may have been sleeping with their executives. There was an (alleged) lunatic gay serial sexual harasser (Massa) running around the Halls of Congress, and the Glenn Beck show, trying to explain the inexplicable, and defend the indefensible...and incomprehensible...about his alleged misdeeds. This was your democratic majority.
President Obama, who now cries for co-operation and bi-partisanship dragged the republican Congressional delegation into a room for a"discussion" of Health Care reform, deliberately dictating and bullying the minority party on television, arrogantly asserting such was his right because "I Won". This man insists that he's open to "all ideas" from the opposition party --and then doesn't listen to any. He leaves the task of governing the United States to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- two people perhaps even dumber than he -- because to take an active hand in governing just might interfere with his golf game, and pick-up basketball.
He sends the Secretary of State to Moscow with a misspelled "gag gift". The President cries that the"Old Alliances" lay in tatters, and then he sends the British Prime Minister home with cheap Wal-Mart gifts, returns a bust of Churchill, and presents the Queen with a gift of his speeches on an iPod. He tells the French President to basically go fuck himself. He makes the Prime Minister of Israel cool his heels in the White Hosue waiting room for the better part of a day -- and the refuses to meet with him. He embraces Hamid Karzai as an "ally", and then publicly hangs him out to dry in the Afghan elections. The President publicly abhors the drug-fueled, violent chaos in Mexico that is spilling over the borders of the United States, and then sues the state of Arizona for presuming to enforce federal immigration law.
The President's mantra for the last few months leading up to his election night spanking has been that we're angry, impatient, racist, stupid, mislead and misinformed. That the American people haven't grasped the benefits of his enlightened rule because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Fox News have muddied the waters. He insists that his troubles aren't because his policies suck, but because he hasn't effectively sold them to us. If only he had another half-dozen teleprompters, he believes, he could have talked turds into gold bricks.
I'm certain I'm missing at least two dozen other examples of Obama's ineptitude, stupidity, stubbornness, petulance and lack of interest in his job. It's almost as if, having achieved an historical milestone (being the first (half-) black man elected President of the United States), the job would then do itself. That the details were unimportant. That the only thing that counted was that America was reordered in such a way as to suit the personal tastes of the Regal and August Obama -- Michelle Obama, that is, I hope she's proud of her country now -- the legalities and nicities and customs of the Realm be damned.
And Rahm Emanuel is at fault?
What are these people smoking?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)