Are you watching this GOP debate on CNN? This is unbelievable. First of all, as bizarre as it is to see the candidates all sitting in front of a huge jet, even worse is that they are sitting at what look like kindergarten desks with their legs sticking out underneath. Geez, couldn’t they have put them in Edith Ann chairs with their legs dangling down? Do you suppose the democrats will be standing at podiums (podia?) tomorrow?
Also, LOVE the first question from Anderson Cooper: taking off on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 question, he asked “are you better off than you were eight years ago?” As IF. As if the incumbent president was on the ballot again, as the incumbent King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter, was in 1980. Only Mitt Romney pointed out that President Bush isn’t on the ballot this time. Why am I not surprised that CNN is trying to position the choice November as Bush v. Democrats?

Trackback URL

The talking heads on the Sunday morning shows yesterday could barely contain their excitement over the apparently heart-stopping news that Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama in an op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times. I suspect that you, like me, find yourself bemused by the media’s exuberance over this pseudo-news. A reasonable person might ask himself why he should care about who Caroline Kennedy endorses any more than he would care about the consensus at the last Junior League tea in any wealthy suburb, or any other gathering of ladies who lunch and volunteer at museums. But I said a “reasonable person,” which leaves out most liberals. To understand why this endorsement was and is THE story of the day, you have to think, and I use the word loosely, like a liberal. It is they who turned the spawn of a bootlegger and Nazi apologist into the equivalent of American royalty, and in fairness to the libs, the Kennedys have done their best to live up (or should I say down) to the standards of the royals across the pond, matching them in adultery, drug addiction and other unsavory behavior. You could say they outdid them, since unless you buy into the ravings of that Dodi Fahed dude’s old man, Prince Charles never killed an inconvenient woman and tried to cover it up. Speaking of that, now the Times is reporting that Caroline’s uncle Teddy is going to endorse Barack Hussein Obama later today. More truly stunning news. I haven’t been so surprised since I heard that Michael Jackson was accused of having an unsavory interest in pre-teen boys. PULEEZE! Who does the New York Times think the Kennedys are going to endorse? Had an evil genius, say, Karl Rove, set out to create a candidate designed to enchant white liberals by offering them an opportunity to absolve their guilt and prove their moral superiority to the narrow-minded dolts who compose the majority of the population in this racist, sexist, unfair country, Barack Obama is that candidate. Why? Where do I start? His African father and his beatnik white mother, his tenure as a “community organizer,” or as a “constitutional law professor” (actually, an adjunct lecturer, but what’s a little resume inflation among liberal friends), his mirroring their schizo approach to his racial identity (embracing the Jim Crow definition of what makes a person black, while denying that race has anything to do with his candidacy), his “soaring” rhetoric, like cotton candy in its initial sweetness and ultimate lack of substance–it’s all there. Once again, it might be hard for some to understand how all of this is so appealing to the liberal mind, a term that I use loosely, by necessity. It’s tough for me, for example, to appreciate how being a “community organizer” is some badge of honor. How is trying to encourage anger, a sense of entitlement and a culture of victimhood in people in anyway helpful to them? I don’t get it, but then, I’m not a liberal. Maybe I could sniff some glue and understand what it’s like to think like a liberal …

But back to the substance of Caroline’s endorsement, such as it is. In a column entitled “A President Like My Father,” she delivers the sort of touchy-feely gibberish you would expect in support of the Oprah candidate:

“OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.”

And

“Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.”

Being inspired and deeply moved? Someone with a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves? Are we looking for a life coach or a leader of the free world, someone to protect us from the Islamic fanatics who are determined to murder most of the world and drag those left standing back to the 7th century? Forgive me if I’m having a hard time keeping my breakfast down while reading this drivel. At the risk of injecting some reality into this Kumbaya fest, let’s look at just two areas: (1) taxes and (2) national security.

TAXES
Here is President Kennedy on the subject of taxes, delivered to Economic Club of New York, December 14, 1962:

“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.
I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe — and I believe this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”

Contrast the statements of Barack Obama on having to “pay” for his cornucopia of social welfare programs by increasing taxes.

JFK clearly understood supply-side economics. BHO, who has a 100% rating from some income-redistribution advocacy group–strictly “non-partisan” I’m sure–called Citizens for Tax Justice, does not. JFK was boldly challenging the orthodoxy of the traditional left-wing, New Deal democrat public policy. Obama, who is supposedly an innovative thinker, with “fresh ideas,” has an approach that comes straight out of 1933 with the rhetoric to match: make the rich pay their “fair share,” don’t give tax cuts to people who “don’t need them,” as if it is the government’s job to decide how much of the money you earn you “need,” and use the coercive power of the government to restore “fairness.” It was JFK who said life isn’t fair, and he understood it wasn’t the government’s job to try to remake society in some utopian image, something Obama has yet to learn.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Who can forget this stirring and inspiring portion of President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address:

Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Contrast the words of Barack Obama. In his most often touted speech, the one that he is constantly waving in everyone’s face as evidence of his anti-Bush bona fides. Here’s what he said:

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Translation: Saddam Hussein’s rape rooms and human shredders could continue, while the billions from the Oil-for-Food scandal continue to finance them, and that would be just fine with Barack Obama. Which is more congruent with the sentiments expressed by President Kennedy in his inaugural address? Stop and think about something else: Barack Obama likes to claim that he is the guy to put in charge of our safety because of his great judgment as reflected in this speech. The speech, demonstrates, though, that he couldn’t have been more wrong about the Iraqi economy’s imminent collapse. President Bush may have been wrong about Saddam Hussein’s harboring of WMD, although we learned last night on “60 Minutes” from George Piro, the FBI interrogator who spent 7 months questioning Saddam Hussein that he had every intention of resuming his WMD programs as soon as he could. Those Oil-for-Food bags of money no doubt would have helped. Barack was wrong and he was willing to give the dictator the benefit of the doubt. President Bush may have been wrong, but he erred on the side of protecting our country and promoting liberty in the Middle East. Who would you say has the better judgment? And why does Barack Obama’s ignorance on something so important go unremarked?

I’m sorry, Caroline, but Mr. Not Ready for Prime Time would not be a President like your father. He would be a president more like Jimmy Carter, which is another way of saying that you and I can agree on one thing. He’d make a terrific life coach.

Trackback URL

Bill Clinton gets a $20 million to go away. There’s a switch. Isn’t he usually the one paying someone to go away, as in “Honey, I left your present on the dresser. Please let yourself out.”

Speaking of Bill Clinton, yesterday on “Good Morning America” Barack Hussein Obama lamented the fact that Bubba sometimes doesn’t tell the truth. Barry–you just noticed this propensity on the part of the former president? Isn’t that like just noticing that Tom Cruise is insane?

And speaking of He Who Walks on Water, last night in the CNN debate, Hillary ripped him for praising Ronald Reagan, claiming, falsely (there they go again) that Barry said that the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats over the last 15 years. Barack Obama didn’t say that. He doesn’t have the sense to believe it, and even if he did, he has too much ambition to say it. Here’s what he actually said:

“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. (emphasis mine) I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

You bet your big ears, Barry, the country was ready for Reagan. You’re right about that, but then a stopped clock is right twice and a day, and you’re no exception. You’re wrong about the reason. The reason can be summed up in two words: Jimmy Carter. And–show of hands–who can tell me how we ended up with Jimmy Carter? Because liberal elitists in the media and other positions of power finally succeeded in their quarter-century long quest to destroy Richard Nixon, thanks to his helpful cooperation in the project. They never got over Alger Hiss, after all, and the Watergate scandal was the perfect means to accomplish two of their important objectives: get rid of Nixon and insure an American defeat in Vietnam. It was a cryto-commie win-win! It also left an opening for Carter to ride his “honest outsider eager for change and to bring us together” mantra to victory. Never mind that this peanut-growing bonehead didn’t have a clue about the economy or foreign policy. He was new! He was fresh! He would bring us together! And he did, in gas lines that stretched for miles, or in front of the tv, watching this doofus in a cardigan sweater whining about our national malaise over 23% interest rates and 12% inflation. Like that stopped clock, the media, who are engaged in a never-ending slobberfest over Obama, are right. He is the 2nd coming, but not the way they think. Not the 2nd coming of Christ, or even the 2nd coming of Robert Kennedy. This empty suit is the 2nd coming of Jimmy Carter. How ironic, then, that he would be the one to pontificate about the country being ready for the man who cleaned up he mess left by his political predecessor/ideological soulmate. It reminds of the joke that a friend told me about the New Zealand sheep farmer who had a few too many at the local pub and then walked into the kitchen with a sheep under his arm. His wife was sitting at the kitchen table. The farmer says “This is the pig I have sex with when you have a headache.” The disgusted wife rolls her eyes and says “You seem to be under the impression that you’re holding a pig, but in fact it’s a sheep.” He looks at her and replies “You seem to be under the impression that I’m talking to you.” In Obama’s little lecture, he seems to be under the impression that he’s Ronald Reagan, when in fact, he’s Jimmy Carter. At least he’s not a sheep or a pig, though. He’s got that going for him.

Trackback URL

I just heard Barack Obama, responding to a question from CNN’s Joe Johns about whether Toni Morrison was right when she described Bill Clinton as “the first black president,” saying that he couldn’t respond until he evaluated Bill Clinton’s “dancing ability.”
No I’m not kidding. Apparently racist stereotypes are ok for candidates who have proclaimed themselves as “black” by embracing Jim Crow standards. My head is spinning. I think I need to lie down for a while.

Trackback URL

On the most recent edition of Bill Mahre’s silly HBO show, that Fareed Zacharia guy–you know the guy from Newsweek–responded to Bill’s suggestion that young Muslims would have a harder time screaming for jihad against a country headed by a president with the middle name “Hussein” by saying that most Americans don’t know that He Who Walks on Water is actually named Barack Hussein Obama. Professional homosexual Dan Savage was also featured on the show, in a videotaped segment. He went to South Carolina to interview some of the mouth-breathing, knuckle dragging, single-digit IQ, NASCAR-loving Christians who are the favorite targets of the sophisticates like Bill Mahre. He reported that they think Barack Obama is a Muslim. And it’s not just on tv. Ask people if they have a problem with BHO’s religion, and most of them will say “You mean the fact that some people are saying he’s a Muslim?” I have this on great authority because I heard a similar exchange in that barometer of public opinion, my manicurist’s.

There is an issue surrounding Obama’s religion, but it’s not that his African grandparents were Muslims. He couldn’t help that. What he needs to explain is why he would voluntarily join an openly, even proudly, racist (or do you say “racially-conscious?”) church. If you don’t know about the Trinity United Church of Christ and its minister, Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., you need to visit their website and read about their mission to address “America’s economic mal-distribution!” (exclamation point theirs) and the “Black Value System.” Is it just me or does anyone else find it a tad ironic that on a day we celebrate the birth of a man whose dream was that we would not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the content of their character, we see as his legacy a presidential candidate who is (a) the beneficiary of socially-acceptable racism aka “affirmative action” (b) who has embraced the identity “African-American” in the grand old tradition of Jim Crow, which mandated that even one drop of black blood makes a person black and (c) belongs to an “Afro-centric” church that promotes a “Black Value System?” Too bad David Duke didn’t think of this idea. He could have claimed that his religion mandated a “White Value System,” and was simply “Eurocentric.” Do you think that would have flown?

Here’s another thought experiment on this holiday. What if Mrs. Anne Romney (or the wife of any of the Republican candidates) had written while she was in college that she was determined to “utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit [the white] community first and foremost.” and “As I enter my final year at [college,] I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my Black classmates — acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high-paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals are not as clear as before.” As you may have guessed, none of the GOP first lady hopefuls wrote these racially-charged sentences, Substitute “white” for “black” and you have the fine work of none other than another affirmative action baby, Michelle “Got a $200,000 a Year Raise After My Husband Was Elected to the Senate” Obama. I guess you can’t blame her for wanting to bend over backwards to benefit people with one color skin versus another. That’s how she got into a prestigious college and then to Harvard Law School.

Speaking of goofy religions, now that the Scientology video tape of Tom Cruise has surfaced, are people piling on and making up stuff about the little nutball? I say that because of this story. Tom Cruise is detoxing 9/11 rescuers with Scientology? I wonder if he’s using one of those E-meters. I also wonder if someone can get some psych meds over to Tom right away.

Here’s an interesting tidbit from the story:

Tom, wife Katie Holmes and daughter Suri have been spending a lot of time in New York this week with actor Jerry Seinfeld and his wife Jessica.
In December, Seinfeld revealed: “I did some Scientology courses about 30 years ago. I didn’t do very much. I don’t know that much, I just did a little but I liked it.”
But a representative for the ‘Bee Movie’ star said: “He is not studying Scientology in any way at this time. He did attend a course 30 years ago that he found interesting but he is Jewish and not changing his religion or faith in any direction.
“Jerry and Tom Cruise both have homes in Telluride, Colorado, which is their connection.”

Gee, I can’t imagine why Jerry’s people were scrambling to make it clear that Jerry’s not involved with this insanity. It’s bad enough that he started dating his wife, the former Nina Sklar, a few weeks after she came back from her honeymoon with some other dude. His packaging as a “nice guy,” doesn’t need that.

But I digress …I was talking about how absurd it is for a “black” presidential candidate, riding an unprecedented wave of white guilt that he and his surrogates stoke at every opportunity, and who is a member of a racist church, to be presented as the shining example of Martin Luther King’s legacy.

Trackback URL