I am one happy bitter clinger today, although I must admit that my glee over the Supreme Court’s gun decision today is restrained by my mystification over the persistence of some Americans to refuse to face reality about their messiah, Barack Hussein Obama. Hey Kool-Aid drinkers, denial is not just a river in Egypt, and you all have a case of denial that makes Dennis Kucinich look like he has a stranglehold on reality.

Barack Hussein Obama is now and always has been a dyed-in-the-wool extreme, crypto-Marxist liberal. On every important public policy issue, he marches in absolute lockstep with the orthodox left.

His ideas are as fresh and new as FDR’s cigarette holder, and like that cigarette holder, they also reek. The issue of gun control is no exception. Whether it’s supporting local gun bans, opposing right to carry laws or voting to allow frivolous lawsuits designed to destroy legitimate businesses that sell firearms, he’s there, 100% behind these wrong-headed, anti-freedom policies. There’s more. It’s all here, including the footnotes. There is absolutely no doubt about it, and no way that anyone with more a single digit IQ could be confused about where the man-god stands and has always stood on this issue. As recently as last November, he told the Chicago Tribune that he thought the DC gun ban law was constitutional. Now suddenly the Obama campaign claims that his previous statement was “inartful” because he supports the 2nd amendment, but also supports “common sense gun control.” For definition of what he means by “common sense gun control,” see the link above. This character believes in the 2nd amendment the way Kristie Alley believes in portion control, or the way I believe in the designated hitter, that is, not at all.

Watching the members of the Obama campaign, both those officially on the payroll, and those who aren’t, the members of his fawning fan club in the dino-media, I get the impression that we’re all supposed to pretend that there’s some mystery about where he stands, breathlessly waiting for He Who Walks on Water to utter that perfectly articulate explanation of his “nuanced” position that will reconcile the irreconcilable inconsistency between being in favor of the right of individuals to keep and bear arms while also being in favor of gun bans, endless lawsuits against gun manufacturers and permitting criminal prosecution of law-abiding citizens who use guns in self defense. This head scratching act (When we he tell us where he stands on the 2nd amendment? We can’t wait for him to “clarify” his position!) is cynical and insulting. I’m sure that Hal DeMar isn’t confused about where Obama stands, and you shouldn’t be either.

Trackback URL

Sorry, Senator, but I have to sit this one out. Feel free, though, to once again do your patented two-step with your zombified supporters. Your latest involves yesterday’s Supreme Court decision, Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which the Court invalidated a Louisiana statute imposing the death penalty for rape of a child under 12. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote “I checked with my peeps in Europe and they said this statute was horrific, barbaric, and typical of what you’d expect from mouth-breathing right-wing Christians in the southern part of the United States. Plus how can I let them execute my cousin?” OK, he didn’t say that. At least I don’t think he did. I haven’t read the opinion, but will I be surprised if I find references to European laws, the obscure writings of some philosopher in Madagascar, or anything else other than our Constitution? Not bloody likely.

But back to He Who Walks on Water. After the decision yesterday, he rushed to the mic to denounce the decision, telling us how he disagrees with it, how heinous the crime is, blah blah blah; that is, to use his phrase the usual okey-doke. Once again, the masquerade is on. The question isn’t whether the senator agrees or disagrees with the result. The question is whether he agrees or disagrees with the reasoning that facilitated the result. That reasoning says that the Imperial Supreme Court can come in, and regardless of what the legislature in Louisiana decided, substitute its opinion and flush the laws the people’s representatives enacted down the toilet. The arguments made in favor of overturning this statute might have merit. That’s not the point. The point is that it should be up to state legislature to decide, not a passel of black-robed, Ivy league elitists who couldn’t be more out of touch with American values if they were Mars.

The opinion was 5-4. The dissenters were Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito, the latter of which Obama said he would filibuster to keep off the Court. Here’s what he said last year about what factors he would consider when selecting nominees to the Court:

“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007 “The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

And no doubt the empathy to understand what it’s like to be a low-life scumbag who rapes his 8 year-old step-daughter.

So there you have the Obama two-step again: denounce the very action that you can’t wait to get into office to encourage.

We are awaiting the DC gun ban decision later, which you will probably recall was another notable example of the man-god’s tap dancing. Stay tuned.

Trackback URL

One of my best friends, a devout Roman Catholic, reminded me recently that you should always watch out for the guy who is first in line for communion, or who has the longest rosary. I never really understood the whole rosary thing, and I say that with no disrespect, but I do understand his point: beware of the person who wears his superior morality on his sleeve. I say that goes a thousand times for a politician who claims to be above politics. If it wasn’t already obvious that this empty suit the dems have put up to lead the free world, a product of the Chicago political machine denying that he is a politician is the equivalent of the long rosary guy, it should be now. As you no doubt have heard, the man-god, Barack Hussein Obama (D-Big Bucks) announced that he will be the first presidential candidate since Richard Nixon to forego public financing in the general election. This decision despite saying last November “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” I guess we can expect that if elected he will be equally aggressive in protecting us from our enemies.

And by the way, this is where a shout out to the Republican nominee is due. Hey, Senator McCain, nice job getting the money out of politics with your idiotic , anti-free speech campaign financing law. You and Rich Feingold can stamp your feet all you want, while He Who Walks on Water spends your campaign into the ground and our country into Jimmy Carter’s second term.

Senator McCain is not the only one expressing disappointment over Barack’s latest flip flop (see Jerusalem, NAFTA). It has been called “hypocrisy at its worst,” and “insincere” by the do-gooder group Public Citizen. The WaPo called “his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take,” and said “politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they’re doing it.

Even Associated Press pointed out that Obama “chose winning over his word.”

So what? Does anyone thing Obama almost cares about any of these critics? To him, they are a minor and very ephemeral nuisance. They are right, of course, but all Obama cares about is winning. That’s all he’s ever cared about. What part of Chicago pol do people not understand? David Brooks had it right on Friday: “Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.”

The story behind the story is that if the public campaign financing system is “broken” as Obama says, why are he and the other democrats contributing to the continuing hobbling of the FEC by refusing to confirm President Bush’s nominees? And here’s the best part–why did the man-god oppose Hans von Spakosky? Mr. Ethics in Government and Count Every Vote opposed this nominee to the FEC because when he was a Justice Dept. lawyer, Mr. Von Spakovsky had a role in approving a Georgia law that requires voters to present a photo ID at the polling place. Even democrats are having a tough time using that shriveled fig leaf of an argument that the photo ID requirement “discriminates” against the poor, the elderly, or whatever mascot of the week they decide to use because everyone knows that if you are concerned about the integrity of the vote, you don’t want illegal aliens and felons voting in demagogues who will give them government handouts. Even Jimmy Carter isn’t buying it, for crying out loud. Everyone that is except people who believe that a Chicago politician is the savior who can rescue our country from corruption.

Trackback URL

Barack Hussein Obama will not save the world all on his own. He will have the able assistance of his impressive brain trust of foreign policy advisers. Here’s one:

That’s right: former Clintonista and occasional party girl for the world’s dictators Madeleine Albright. Here’s a list of the rest.

Warren Christopher? Greg Craig–the guy who helped deliver an innocent child to Castro? Clintonista Richard “Winnie the Pooh” Danzig? Are you kidding me?

Speaking of Mr. Hope and Change, there was an interesting article in yesterday’s WaPo, entitled “Why We’re Gloomier Than the Economy.”
On one level, it as unintentionally hilarious to see another MSM propaganda outlet engage in head scratching over why many Americans have a distorted impression of our economy–Gee, why could that be? Could it be the incessant drumbeat (or do you say dumb beat?) from the likes of the WaPo and friends over “the end of the American dream,” ” an economy as bad as the great depression,” and similar drivel? We’re talking about change here, though, not more of the same, which is why I found the following passage quite interesting:

“But so far, the economy is holding up better than it did during the last two recessions in 1990 and 2001. Employers haven’t shed as many jobs, the unemployment rate is still relatively low, and gross domestic product has kept rising. Things are nowhere near as bad as they were in the Great Depression, or even during the severe recession of 1982-83. The last time consumers were this miserable, in May 1980, the jobless rate was 7.5 percent and inflation was 14.4 percent. Now those numbers are 5.5 percent and 4.2 percent respectively.”

MMM …who was president in May, 1980? Ask any Obama Kool-Aid drinkers that you know, particularly the wet behind the ears ones, if they know.

Trackback URL

I just saw Joy Behar on “Larry King” say that Hitler could soften his image by coming on “The View” the way Malignant Michelle did today. This “hilarious” comment came in response to Larry’s reference to the article in the Liberal Death Star (the New York Times for you new readers) detailing the strategy by the Obama campaign to give Michelle “someone give us something” Obama an image makeover. I guess they don’t think that the angry poster girl for affirmative action with all the distasteful baggage–you know, the sense of entitlement, the rage, the condescension–that goes along with it won’t play in Peoria. Better she should keep wearing the Wilma Flintstone big pearls than that chip on her shoulder the size of the Sears Tower she’s been toting around for at least as long as the 20 years she and the her old man have been in Jeremiah Wright’s “God d–m America” amen chorus.

This “View” appearance by the woman that National Review very accurately called “Mrs. Greivance,” was not for the faint-hearted. If you decide to watch this trainwreck, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

“What is your answer to all these attacks?” asked pathetic Castro-loving fossil Barbara Walters, referring to Mrs. Obama’s remark that she’s finally proud of her country. The late Tim Russert has been lauded as a hero for almost a week for confronting politicians with their previous statements, but he was an exception to the rule that says when you confront liberals with their actual statements or voting records it is a “vicious, mean-spirited attack.” “Of course I’m proud of my country. No where but in America could my story be possible,” mouthed the Malignant one. Where have I heard that before? Wasn’t it in the man-god’s speech in at the Dem convention in 2004? You remember, the one that had the MSM wetting their pants. This line was definitely familiar. Repeat after me: Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

We also learned that Michelle never wanted her husband to go into politics because it is a “mean” business. Of course it is Michelle because this is a “mean country,” right? Just how stupid does this lippy broad think we are? She used to work for Mayor Daley for crying out loud, and we’re supposed to believe she and the former “community organizer” (government paid troublemaker) weren’t interested in politics?

Then this embarrassing hen party turned into a love fest/”let me explain what I really meant” party for Mrs. O. Of course, the “conservative” airheaded Elisabeth Hasselbeck didn’t disappoint, joining the slobbering along with the liberal hags.

Speaking of race, Whoppi asked Michelle about BHO’s speech on Father’s Day “one of the greatest Father’s Day speeches ever,” about fathers not taking responsibility, acting like boys, blah blah–you know, all the stuff that Bill Cosby got hammered for saying 4 or 5 years ago. Not once did any of this clueless bunch address the obvious point: the very policies that socialists like Barack and Michelle Obama advocate are the ones that helped destroy the black family.

A new low: Whoppi G suggesting that it was “time for the country to have a little diversity training.” She also thanked her for appearing on television frequently because “anytime you see black folks on tv particularly women they have no teeth and the teeth that they have have gold around them and they can’t put a sentence together.” I’m so glad that BHO’s candidacy has nothing to do with race, aren’t you?

Trackback URL

“I was coming to support him, and I felt like I was discriminated against.
The message that I thought was delivered to us was that they do not want him associated with Muslims or Muslim supporters.”
Hebba Aref, headscarf clad Detroit lawyer barred from camera shot at Obama event where Al Gore endorsed Mr. Not Ready for Prime Time

The jokes on you, Hebba. For once the Rev. Wrong was right: He Who Walks on Water is nothing more than a politician, and also a flaming liberal, which means that nothing makes him angrier than when someone tells the truth about him, as in saying that he is nothing more than a politician. Mr. Hope and Change is really Mr. Been There Done That, as in “why would I want to vote for George McGovern or Jimmy Carter when I (a) had more sense than to do it the first time or (b) did it once and have regretted it ever since? Is it just me, or do you find it hilarious that his campaign spokesman is saying that the banning of these Muslim women from Obama’s photo op is an outrageous violation of campaign policy? Yeah right. Far better to ban certain attendees from being in a camera shot and risk their being offended than to have any photographic evidence of Barack Hussein Obama being supported by anyone who might remind observers that he’s the candidate that Hamas thinks is the bee’s knees. You can always come back and say you are shocked, shocked á la Louie in “Casablanca” that someone was discriminated against.

As for the disillusioned Obama Kool-Aid drinker Hebba, she reminds me of Dave Stoller in “Breaking Away” after the Italian cyclists, who Dave idolized, exhibited their true colors by attacking their talented young admirer because that was the only way these rotten cheaters could win. It’s got to hurt to discover that your messiah is nothing more than a backstabbing, two-faced phony who will do anything to win, but better to find out now than later. As bad as it is to face the painful truth about your hero, it’s far worse when your starry-eyed stupidity takes the country down the sewer.

Trackback URL

Sen. McCain wants the man-god participate in a series of town hall meetings, but given the absence of a TelePrompTer, Mr. Not Ready for Prime Time is not exactly enthusiastic about the idea. That’s putting it mildly. I’m sure he was looking more forward to his last prostate exam than having to try to form a coherent sentence without a prepared text. Anyone who has heard his previous attempts to master this accomplishment understands why. McCain says if BHO doesn’t show up, he’ll debate an empty chair. If BHO changes his mind, McCain can debate an empty suit.

Speaking of empty chairs, I’ll bet even the late Tim Russert wouldn’t ask He Who Walks on Water about his admission to Charlie Gibson last April about taxes. Remember? If not, you can see the video of Barack Obama admitting that he’s a socialist:

Obama admitted that he wants to raise taxes even if it results in less revenue, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a socialist, then going on to say he wanted to raise taxes so we’d have revenue for health care and to fix the infrastructure. Oh yeah, this guy is Mr. Great Judgment. Just ask Jeremiah Wright, Billy Ayers and Tony Rezko. What a perfect day to ask HWWOW about this tax thing, when he goes to Michigan, where the dimwitted governor Jennifer Granholm has used the sort of policies Obama advocates to plunge the state into a deep, recession.

And speaking of those guys, I know I’m not supposed to speak about them. If I’m not careful, I’ll end up on that new website the Obamaites launched last week to fight the many “smears” against them. You know how to smear and attack a liberal, don’t you? You tell the truth about them, as in you “swift boat” them. If Obama and his acolytes are so concerned about truth, I wonder why they lied about Sen. McCain last week. After the Supreme Court decided that their desire for a bare power grab that is not only at war with previous legal precedent but common sense was more important than the Constitution or Americans’ personal safety, McCain correctly noted that this decision was one of the worst in history. Obama said “Today’s Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court’s decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism…” Say what? “[A] failed policy supported by John McCain? I don’t think so. John McCain has stated several times that he wants to close Gitmo, a policy with which I strongly disagree. Why is it ok for Obama to lie, and does that count as a “smear?”

Trackback URL

So just as I was getting ready to scribble about how it would be so great for President Bush to throw those seditious, power-hungry, black-robed traitors who inexplicably decided that terrorists deserve the protections of our Constitution in prison, or even Gitmo, just for irony’s sake, I found out that NBC’s Tim Russert had collapsed and died. I had several thoughts: (1) yes, he was a democrat apparatchik masquerading as an “objective journalist,” but which of these talking heads isn’t? MMM …let me see …Georgie “I look like an aerobics instructor” Stephanopoulis? No Chris “the Screamer” Matthews who used to write speeches for the King of the Useful Idiots, Jimmy Carter? Linda Douglass, who just went to work as a flak for Barack Hussein Obama? You get the idea. (2) as sad as it is for a man to be cut down in the prime of life, it seems even sadder that this guy who clearly loved his father should die just two days before Father’s Day and (3) the orgy that the MSM will make of this man’s death will be nauseating. That last prediction is proving to be true. I love the way they are blathering on about how even though he worked for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and other dems, you never knew where he stood politically. PULEEZE! That charade is not only insults our intelligence. It’s completely unnecessary. We know he was a lifelong democrat. It’s still sad that he died so suddenly, so young and left his wife and son. RIP, Mr. Russert.

One thing I can say for sure: if the suits at NBC put Howdy Doody aka the smirking idiot David Gregory in that MTP chair, I’m done with that show for good. That is one face I can’t stomach for an hour, even once a week.

Trackback URL

When I put out the flag this Memorial Day morning, I said a silent prayer for all the brave men and women who have served in our military, and who are serving today, and for their families, so that we can live in freedom in the greatest country in the history of mankind. My mere words can never truly express what is in my heart, but I hope you will accept my thanks, as inadequate as it is.

Then I wondered how anyone can even consider supporting a person like Barack Hussein Obama for the office of Commander-in-Chief when it couldn’t be more obvious that he drank enthusiastically from the “Imperialist Amerika” well that is American academia.

On this Memorial Day, let’s all ask ourselves “do you think that Barack Obama would agree with those who suggest that the filthy, dope-smoking, Ho Chi Mihn loving traitors who evaded the draft along with a daily shower, and who alternated between waiving the white flag and that of the Viet Cong while spitting on or burning our own, were “patriots” for opposing that “illegal and immoral war?” Gee, let me see …what would Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn say? Of course he does! It’s manifest! That is the left’s distorted, America-hating view of that conflict, and it is reflected in today when they ignorantly bloviate about the current existential war against Islamofacism. Anyone who doesn’t see that must be smoking something funny himself.

Then I thought “today if I hear one mush-headed lib talk about how supporting the troops means bringing them home and whining about their government benefits, I could go Danica Patrick on them.” Seriously. Have you noticed how for the liberals means turning them, like every other group–and let’s remember that for the liberals, there are no individuals, only groups–into victims, mascots for their campaign to increase the size of government at home and surrender to our enemies everywhere?

The notions that patriotism means denigrating our country at every turn, seeking the approval of a bunch of French surrender monkeys for defending ourselves and turning our brave military men and women into victim/mascots are fine for some castrato Ivy League professor and similar adolescent poseurs trying to appear intellectually superior. For a commander-in-chief? Not so much.

Trackback URL

OK, I’m a pinhead for giving you such short notice on my talk tomorrow to the May Luncheon and Annual Meeting of the Republican Club of Evanston. I must invent that time machine … Anyway, I am returning “by popular demand” (that’s what the flyer says), and I had a great time last time, so I think it should be more fun and informative than that lost Japanese grey parrot who told the vet his name and address, but without the feathers.

Here’s the 411:The social hour is 11:30 am, lunch at 12 noon ($15). I’ll be talking at ~1 pm. Also, since I should have posted this notice a long time ago, if you want to go, please do me a monster favor and call Mary Anne Hoover at 847/869-6036 so that they can set up the chairs.

When you come I can tell you about the latest example of how I really ticked off a lot of people, only this time, they were conservatives. There’s a switch, huh?

See you soon!
Best,
T

Trackback URL