Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Joe Scarborough: Top Senate Dems Tell Me 'Obama Doesn't Know What He Is Doing'
"You know damn well, which powerful Senators who run the United States Senate have been saying about Barack Obama for the past two years!" exclaims the host of Morning Joe. Toward the end of the video Scarborough says, "I sometimes will be sitting at home, the phone will ring and I'll pick it up and it's a Democratic chairman saying, 'Can you believe, what he (Obama) is doing today?'"
Play BamaOpoly with the Bamster and his Socialist pals
A game that warms the crusty hearts of even the most seasoned Hollywood Libs. Help Obama take over Banks, Union adled industries and the lapdog media.
A San Fran' Nancy Pelosi / Heart-throb Harry Reid approved game suitable for all the proletariat, from the mind of Saul Alinsky.
Click to enlarge.
A San Fran' Nancy Pelosi / Heart-throb Harry Reid approved game suitable for all the proletariat, from the mind of Saul Alinsky.
Click to enlarge.
Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
In the latest Red State Update, Jackie and Dunlap weigh in on Obama's surprising Nobel Peace Prize win. Does he deserve it? What Jackie and Dunlap's answer may shock you. If you don't know them at all.
Of course, Jackie and Dunlap didn't like it much better when Al Gore won his Nobel Peace Prize...
Don't forget to join the Red State Update community over at redstateupdate.com. Come get your freedom yell on.
Of course, Jackie and Dunlap didn't like it much better when Al Gore won his Nobel Peace Prize...
Don't forget to join the Red State Update community over at redstateupdate.com. Come get your freedom yell on.
Obama, Olympics, Chicago: UNAMERICAN
We're updatin' this Red State Update blog again, and just in time for us to laugh at Obama's failure to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016. Ha ha ha! That was us laughin'. Which do you think Jackie and Dunlap hate more, Obama, the Olympics, or foreigners? The answer may surprise you.
Don't forget to check us out at redstateupdate.com. That's where all the action is. Come join the Red State Update community and interact with like-minded reprobates. Or even un-like-minded reprobates! The reprobate part is what's important.
Don't forget to check us out at redstateupdate.com. That's where all the action is. Come join the Red State Update community and interact with like-minded reprobates. Or even un-like-minded reprobates! The reprobate part is what's important.
CIA Morale
Here's a job for you:
1. Move overseas and pretend to be someone you are not. In particular, it would be great if you would move to such scenic countries as Pakistan, Russia or perhaps China.
2. Live there for 3-5 years establishing yourself as a "trade representative" of a major corporation from the United States, or perhaps, a visa officer at the local U.S. Consulate.
3. Befriend local officials and business leaders. Educate them on why you think that the United States' position towards their country is OK, but could be a lot better if only their country would work with us more.
4. After months of hard work, ask one of your new "friends" for some information about their company (could be an industrial manufacturer, could be a shipbuilder, could be a company involved in securing raw materials for their nation, etc.). Your request initially will be small, but over time, it will grow. You will want details and your "friend," will have begun to trust you...after all, nothing bad is happening.
5. Reveal to your friend that you work for the Central Intelligence Agency and that if they will help you get the mother lode of targeted information, you will whisk them out of their country and get them a new life in the land of milk and honey, aka, the United States.
6. Carry out your mission and return to the United States for a down cycle stateside. Bring your "friend" out at the same time and help him get a new life.
7. Bask in the knowledge that you have foiled a potential enemy's plans to do harm to your native land.
8. Get subpoenaed to appear before a Congressional sub-committee on intelligence that is looking into allegations that you might have been "harsh" with a contact or two while you were overseas trying to accomplish your mission.
9. Thousands of dollars in legal fees later, return to your job at the CIA at Langley.
10. Get subpoenaed by Eric Holder at the Justice Department who is looking intoallegations that you might have been "harsh" with a contact or two while you were overseas trying to accomplish your mission.
11. Watch as your "friend" is exposed and deported back to his native land. A youtube video two months later confirms he was sentenced to hard labor and died in a prison camp. Have THAT on your conscience.
12. Thousands of dollars in legal fees later, get sentenced to 10 years at Leavenworth for breaking a "protocol" that has been retroactively instated.
13. Watch loons from the Democrat party run to the press and crow about how "justice has finally been done!!"
14. As you are cuffed and being placed in the van to take you to the airport for your ride to Kansas, see President Obama on the TV screen saying it was out of his hands.
15. Know, sadly, that across the globe, thousands of agents, just like you are no longer pursuing their missions - they got the message from this Administration. America is exposed.
Rumbling sadly on.
PARSING
I began reading the speech that B. Hussein O. delivered to the “Muslim World” with some trepidation. The propensity for this man on foreign soil has been to blame their problems on the United States or the West in general. It didn’t take long for my fears to be met. How does BHO explain the problems of the Islamic world? Two paragraphs in he said:
He continues: “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” OK, Obama, show me the common principles between the Judeo-Christian ethic of ALL individuals being equal and Sharia law. Show me the progress of how women are treated in these countries with “tolerance and dignity.” The two traditions could not be further apart…this is ignorance or purposeful blindness.
Here’s another stem-winder: “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” Tell that to the Christians living in Muslim countries:
Continuing, BHO asserts that there are “almost 7 million Muslims living in the United States…” Pew Research puts the number at 2.4 million in 2007 – have almost 5 million immigrated since then? The only source that puts the number that high is the terrorist connected Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), dutifully repeated by Newsweek.
In discussing the "war on violent extremism," Obama actually does a pretty good job of defending why we went into Afghanistan (and are still there)...as I read that section of the speech I thought he was actually "getting it," and just changing the vernacular. But then he wrapped up that part with this doozy: "The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace." Islam IS part of the problem and until moderates and sane members of their religion start policing from within and root out the insane murdering huns that have overpowered their faith, there can be no peace.
BHO muddles into Iraq with this campaignspeak: "Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world." Iraq was a lot of things, many of them wrong, but to call it a "war of choice," as if we sat around and played Eenie, meanie, minie, mo and "chose" Iraq" is irresponsible and damn near traitorous. We "chose" Iraq because Saddam had violated every UN resolution ever passed and was thought to have WMD's. EVERYONE thought he did - whether he got them out and into the Bakaa Valley we may never know, but post-facto denial...should we call it "Pelosification," is a disease rampant among the left.
He wraps up the "foreign wars" section with this: "So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened." This might have been a good place to have mentioned that almost EVERY engagement we have fought in the last twenty years has been to help Muslims. Bosnia? Help Muslims against Christian Serbs. Kosovo? Ditto. Afghanistan? Liberate mainstream Muslims from fanatical Huns. Iraq? Liberate Muslims from a fanatical oppressive regime. How about a little "cred" on the "Muslim Street," Barry?
The next section of his speech dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's the usual call for two states. It's really a "blah blah" part of the speech in that it repeats the usual mantra for peace that all sides have ignored: Arabs have to recognize Israel (tell that to the Saudis and the Iranians); Hamas has to play nice; Israel has to stop building. The symbology of this whole trip is such an afront to Israel that his line about our bond with the Israelis being "unbreakable" rings a little hollow. Here's what the Israelis think:
These posters appeared yesterday all over the country after a massive protest at the U.S. Embassy. These folks see past the empty rhetoric and three-second teleprompting head swing. Anyhoo - BHO has now solved the misunderstanding over our military presence in the Middle East, brought peace and purple unicorns to the Arab-Israeli conflict, cured the common cold...what's next? Oh, that nagging nuclear situation.
Well, here's the first part of the history lesson: "For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." First, the 1953 Coup was conducted to prevent the nationalization of the British and American oil companies operating in Iran. By today's standards, boorish behavior. It was also a defensive move to present the Soviets from either allying or taking Iran by force. But the reasons for the coup are far more complex than BHO lets on - let alone the fact that the Muslim clerics in Iran strongly supported the coup! Further, the "Islamic Revolution" was allowed to proceed, in large part because of the acquiescence of Jimmy Carter and his active engagement in forcing the Shah from power. Only in "History for Dummies" can you get such a boiled down, audience pleasing summary of what happened. It wasn't just simple old misunderstanding and "hostage taking," it was the seizing of an Embassy! The very fabric of diplomacy was ripped asunder by the Iranian stooges...as the son of a diplomat who grew up overseas, what happened in Tehran is extremely close to Rumbler's heart. From that point forward, EVERY U.S. diplomat has had a target on them. Writing it off as bad behavior does nothing to restore diplomacy or trust.
BHO wraps up Iranian relations by asserting that they have the right to peaceful nuclear power...two questions: first, why did they turn down repeated offers by member nations of the EU and Russia to provide nuclear fuel for peaceful reactors AND two, Barry - if they get nuclear power, can we? Sure would be a lot more efficient than the windmills!
The next chapter is about democracy in the Middle East. BHO says that Americans like democracy and respect democratically elected leaders, especially those that don't abuse their population...wonder if economic abuse counts? He SAYS these things having just left Saudi Arabia, one of the most viciously oppressive monarchies in the world and while standing in Egypt, one of the most viciously oppressive regimes in the world. Talk is cheap. I'm not sure what he could have said, to be honest, but why bother to bring it up? They are not going to change because of a few sentences on the teleprompter. If you are going to bring it up, back it up. Call out the regimes - talk about Christians and women in Saudi, talk about Jews and Christians in Egypt.
He circles back to religious tolerance in the next volume. With this nice juxtaposition: " Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition." I get it! Islam good, Catholics bad! Never mind that the Inquisition was over 500 years ago and that Catholics have progressed out of that awful time to true tolerance while Islam has gone straight back to before the Dark Ages. And Barry, check your history, the coexistance in Andalusia and Cordoba was tolerated bacause the Christians and Jews paid the tax dictated by the Koran.
In chapter six he brushes over women's rights. He rightfully points out the countries that have elected women to high office, but why not call out those that treat women like dogs...like, say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt? But all of this is prelude to the concluding act in our drama: the goodie bag!!
So, for having to sit through this 6,000 word scrabble, what do the gangs in the crowd get? Obama's list includes:
A truly bold speech would have called on Arabs to stop suicide bombings and terrorist plots. Put in some salve for scientific advancement and algebra, but point out the FACT that change has to come from within their world. We can't impose it on them or buy it for them. Until that happens, it's just words.
Rumble on!
“…tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.”So colonialism (which the United States NEVER engaged in), which raised many of these countries out of the dust of the Middle Ages, a Cold War (which we did engage in, but the purpose was to defeat communism, not keep Islamic countries down-trodden) and our own success are why the West is “hostile to Islam?”
He continues: “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” OK, Obama, show me the common principles between the Judeo-Christian ethic of ALL individuals being equal and Sharia law. Show me the progress of how women are treated in these countries with “tolerance and dignity.” The two traditions could not be further apart…this is ignorance or purposeful blindness.
Here’s another stem-winder: “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” Tell that to the Christians living in Muslim countries:
In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country and one traditionally renowned for its religious toleration, terrorists bombed churches in 18 cities, killing scores and wounding hundreds. Violence against the Christian minority has steadily continued over the past decade." As an example, he cited the beheadings of three Christian teenage girls in Sulawesi in late October. International Christian Concern's Jeff King brought photos of the incident; the girls' heads were left at a church, each with a note that vowed, "We will murder 100 more Christian teenagers and their heads will be presented as presents."
In Egypt Christians are treated as "second-class citizens" under state-sponsored discrimination and actively persecuted by Islamic militants apart from the government. He cited the week-long riot in October against St. George's Coptic Church in Alexandria by a 10,000-strong mob incensed by rumors of blasphemy.
Christians face repression in Iran. Tehran's tyrannical President Ahmadinejad met with 30 provincial governors and reportedly declared, "I will stop Christianity in this country," avowing to shut down the country's growing house-church movement.
In Saudi Arabia, Christians, a large percentage of the foreign workers making up a quarter of the population, will not be able to find any churches whatsoever to worship in. Churches are forbidden. Dozens of those who pray together in private houses were arrested and jailed earlier this year. This fanatically intolerant kingdom even forbids Muslims, under threat of death, to wish a Christian "Happy Holidays," much less "Merry Christmas." (Source: Center or Religious Freedom)
Continuing, BHO asserts that there are “almost 7 million Muslims living in the United States…” Pew Research puts the number at 2.4 million in 2007 – have almost 5 million immigrated since then? The only source that puts the number that high is the terrorist connected Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), dutifully repeated by Newsweek.
In discussing the "war on violent extremism," Obama actually does a pretty good job of defending why we went into Afghanistan (and are still there)...as I read that section of the speech I thought he was actually "getting it," and just changing the vernacular. But then he wrapped up that part with this doozy: "The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace." Islam IS part of the problem and until moderates and sane members of their religion start policing from within and root out the insane murdering huns that have overpowered their faith, there can be no peace.
BHO muddles into Iraq with this campaignspeak: "Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world." Iraq was a lot of things, many of them wrong, but to call it a "war of choice," as if we sat around and played Eenie, meanie, minie, mo and "chose" Iraq" is irresponsible and damn near traitorous. We "chose" Iraq because Saddam had violated every UN resolution ever passed and was thought to have WMD's. EVERYONE thought he did - whether he got them out and into the Bakaa Valley we may never know, but post-facto denial...should we call it "Pelosification," is a disease rampant among the left.
He wraps up the "foreign wars" section with this: "So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened." This might have been a good place to have mentioned that almost EVERY engagement we have fought in the last twenty years has been to help Muslims. Bosnia? Help Muslims against Christian Serbs. Kosovo? Ditto. Afghanistan? Liberate mainstream Muslims from fanatical Huns. Iraq? Liberate Muslims from a fanatical oppressive regime. How about a little "cred" on the "Muslim Street," Barry?
The next section of his speech dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's the usual call for two states. It's really a "blah blah" part of the speech in that it repeats the usual mantra for peace that all sides have ignored: Arabs have to recognize Israel (tell that to the Saudis and the Iranians); Hamas has to play nice; Israel has to stop building. The symbology of this whole trip is such an afront to Israel that his line about our bond with the Israelis being "unbreakable" rings a little hollow. Here's what the Israelis think:
These posters appeared yesterday all over the country after a massive protest at the U.S. Embassy. These folks see past the empty rhetoric and three-second teleprompting head swing. Anyhoo - BHO has now solved the misunderstanding over our military presence in the Middle East, brought peace and purple unicorns to the Arab-Israeli conflict, cured the common cold...what's next? Oh, that nagging nuclear situation.Well, here's the first part of the history lesson: "For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." First, the 1953 Coup was conducted to prevent the nationalization of the British and American oil companies operating in Iran. By today's standards, boorish behavior. It was also a defensive move to present the Soviets from either allying or taking Iran by force. But the reasons for the coup are far more complex than BHO lets on - let alone the fact that the Muslim clerics in Iran strongly supported the coup! Further, the "Islamic Revolution" was allowed to proceed, in large part because of the acquiescence of Jimmy Carter and his active engagement in forcing the Shah from power. Only in "History for Dummies" can you get such a boiled down, audience pleasing summary of what happened. It wasn't just simple old misunderstanding and "hostage taking," it was the seizing of an Embassy! The very fabric of diplomacy was ripped asunder by the Iranian stooges...as the son of a diplomat who grew up overseas, what happened in Tehran is extremely close to Rumbler's heart. From that point forward, EVERY U.S. diplomat has had a target on them. Writing it off as bad behavior does nothing to restore diplomacy or trust.
BHO wraps up Iranian relations by asserting that they have the right to peaceful nuclear power...two questions: first, why did they turn down repeated offers by member nations of the EU and Russia to provide nuclear fuel for peaceful reactors AND two, Barry - if they get nuclear power, can we? Sure would be a lot more efficient than the windmills!
The next chapter is about democracy in the Middle East. BHO says that Americans like democracy and respect democratically elected leaders, especially those that don't abuse their population...wonder if economic abuse counts? He SAYS these things having just left Saudi Arabia, one of the most viciously oppressive monarchies in the world and while standing in Egypt, one of the most viciously oppressive regimes in the world. Talk is cheap. I'm not sure what he could have said, to be honest, but why bother to bring it up? They are not going to change because of a few sentences on the teleprompter. If you are going to bring it up, back it up. Call out the regimes - talk about Christians and women in Saudi, talk about Jews and Christians in Egypt.
He circles back to religious tolerance in the next volume. With this nice juxtaposition: " Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition." I get it! Islam good, Catholics bad! Never mind that the Inquisition was over 500 years ago and that Catholics have progressed out of that awful time to true tolerance while Islam has gone straight back to before the Dark Ages. And Barry, check your history, the coexistance in Andalusia and Cordoba was tolerated bacause the Christians and Jews paid the tax dictated by the Koran.
In chapter six he brushes over women's rights. He rightfully points out the countries that have elected women to high office, but why not call out those that treat women like dogs...like, say, Saudi Arabia or Egypt? But all of this is prelude to the concluding act in our drama: the goodie bag!!
So, for having to sit through this 6,000 word scrabble, what do the gangs in the crowd get? Obama's list includes:
- Expanded exchange programs for Muslim students.
- A new "corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries."
- A Summit on Entrepreneurship...gotta have one of those.
- A "new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries."
- A bunch of "centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia."
- Umm, they're getting what we're supposedly getting: "programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops."
- And we're going to eliminate polio and get better healthcare for women and children in Muslim countries.
A truly bold speech would have called on Arabs to stop suicide bombings and terrorist plots. Put in some salve for scientific advancement and algebra, but point out the FACT that change has to come from within their world. We can't impose it on them or buy it for them. Until that happens, it's just words.
Rumble on!
The Incredible Lightness of O
Well, two apology tours under his belt and the apologies and scraping continue. At some point he has to go to the Orient - what could await us there? Apologize to the Phillipines for propping up their economy, to Vietnam for attempting to liberate half their country...perhaps to Japan for fighting a needless war with them sometime in the last century because of our arrogance? The mind reels at the possibilities! What BHO fails to realize in his incredible lightness of being is that when the President travels overseas, or speaks to foreign leaders, it's not a popularity contest! He is supposed to speak as the voice of the nation, not as the global messiah. * We are also dealing with a psychological condition that has created a two part theorem that I would call "The Premise of O." If this theory were not being tested on the world stage with real lives and fortunes at stake, it would be funny but, alas, here we are.
The premise is in two parts:
I. By apologizing for anything and everything from Harry Truman dropping the bomb to our cultural "arrogance," we will get a fresh start with everyone.
II. By making ourselves weak, we become strong.
The first part of the premise has a corollary to it which is closely connected to a rather frightening messianic complex that BHO seems to exhibit and it is that ALL was bad before the O. In fact, why don't be change our annual numbering system and allow this to be the first year of O, or AO1. Last year, would be the Bad Before O or BBO1. Our nation was founded not in 1776, but in BBO232. But now, with the sweetness and light of Obama's smooth talk, the rest of the nations swoon! The Iranians put down their bombs, Al Queda turns itself in - comforted that they will not longer be tortured or prosecuted, Kim Jong Il tears down the fences singing Kumbaya with his disarmed soldiers at the border and Hugo Chavez and Fidel now say that the United States is a great nation that should strengthen and prosper instead of being destroyed.
Well, that's the vision anyway...how's it playing so far? Hmm, not like the dream. That's because it is just that - a dream, a fantasy. With his messianic complex going before, this guy really believes he can make the "ice stop melting" and can talk to the animals. The only evil that exists in this tormented world is that of "right wing extremists." The sad reality is that evil does exist - sadder still, is that the folks who keep that evil away from our shores and call it for what it is , are the targets of this administration. What we saw on 9/11 was not caused by regular nice guys who just couldn't take America's arrogance anymore. No, what we saw was evil incarnate. We saw people who believed they could do what they did because we had done nothing to respond to prior aggressions like the U.S.S. Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. They thought we were finished, kaput, afraid to fight. Thank God we showed them they were wrong. And like or hate George W. Bush, after 9/11, in 8 years we were not attacked again on our soil. Given the direction this administration is taking, I have serious doubts that another 8 will pass without an attack. And this leads me to the falacy of the second part of the "Premise of O."
Christ is the only figure in history who created strength because of his weakness and he paid a gruesome price for it. Of course, that he was also God, as Christians believe, might have had something to do with it too. And his message was compelling and noble. To turn the other cheek when you have been wronged as an individual is a noble thing to do that advances society. To turn the other cheek when you are a nation is a path to destruction and termination as a society. Does BHO really believe he can pull off at a national level in AO1, what Christ could barely do for a ragged population in BBO2009?
Let's take the notion of "torture," as a prime example. As I am sure you already know, BHO has declassified portions of the CIA memoranda on "torture" in the aftermath of 9/11. They are carefully leaving out the parts of the memos that spell out what we gained from these "tortures," and how many lives were saved. When we talk of "torture" though, we really need to ask five questions:
1. Who is being "tortured?"
2. How are we "torturing?"
3. Why are we "torturing?"
4. Did it work?
5. Are we safer moving forward now that we have exposed our methods?
Question number one - umm, yes you in the back...do you have the answer?
"Yeah, we are torturing murderous, suicidal, maniacal Muslim extremists who believe that their God calls on them to kill people who don't subscribe to their religion. These people would gladly impose a tyranical theocracy on the whole world where women would be sent back to a caste lower than farm animals. They have murdered thousands upon thousands of their own people and believe that no one is off limits as a target."
Very good! You obviously are not a memer of the Obama administration! I would only add to that fine answer that these are the same people that like sawing off live people's heads on YouTube for fun. Now this is not to get into a moral equivalency argument, but it should serve to remind people that the prisoners that were "tortured" were not members of the Vienna Boys Choir.
Question number two...yes, you with your hand up on the right there...
"The worst thing we are doing to these folks is submitting them to a treatment that makes them feel they are drowning - scary stuff I am sure - same stuff that anyone who went through the military's SERE (Search Evasion Resistance Escape) school would experience. It's not as bad for those folks though because they know they are not going to be killed...oh wait, the bad guys know that too now...but anyway, some sleep deprivation, maybe a little humiliation in the mix."
Wow, this is a good class! Let's take a break and watch a referesher video:
OK - on to question three - WHY are we torturing? Let's see, you in the red shirt with the beagle logo...
"Torture is used to gather actionable intelligence. Our problem after 9/11 was particularly difficult because we didn't have knowledge of any specific plots, we just knew there was a good chance we would get hit again. There is a particularly useful discussion on this over at Stratfor."
Whoa, how did you get a hyperlink into your verbal answer? Yes, the Stratfor piece is very useful in understanding this issue and you are right. In no way is it indiscriminate, common or rampant...we are still very much the good guys. Shame that the left can't bring themselves to look at us that way, but compared to the enemy, our guys are saints.
Q4 - did it work? Yes, the nice looking gentleman with bald pate and glasses...are you Dick Cheney?
"No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. The short answer is 'yes, it worked.' We don't know the details yet because those portions of the memos have not been de-classified. But we had eight years of no attacks on US soil and numerous hints of plots that were foiled. In short, American lives were saved."
Now the biggy - who would like to answer question number 5 - are we safer without them? Yes, the lady with the "Texas Longhorns" t-shirt -
"Hell no. I mean, time will tell, but the odds are not good. Does BHO REALLY believe that by telling the Islamokooks what to expect if they end up in one of our 'hotels,' that they are now not going to join the Jihad? This guy is dumber than soap..."
Ma'am - please, he is the President of the United States...let us not stoop to the hatred that the left vented on Mr. Bush for eight long years.
Well, that wraps up this portion of our class on why being weaker does not make you stronger!
So, to sum up and restate the Premise of O - we have a leader who through naivete or lack of intelligence beleives that he can make the lion lie down with the lamb...or better, he can be the lamb that lies down with the lion? Either way, he has set us on a path that was last attemted by Jimmy Carter. Carter is arguably the reason we are where we are now as it was under his "watch" that the first major blow of the Muslim world was landed on us with no response - the taking of our Embassy in Tehran. We tried talking then too and it didn't get us very far. The world is a much more dangerous place now. Let us pray...
Rumble on!
*Dorothy Rabinowitz has an excellent column on this here.
The premise is in two parts:
I. By apologizing for anything and everything from Harry Truman dropping the bomb to our cultural "arrogance," we will get a fresh start with everyone.
II. By making ourselves weak, we become strong.
The first part of the premise has a corollary to it which is closely connected to a rather frightening messianic complex that BHO seems to exhibit and it is that ALL was bad before the O. In fact, why don't be change our annual numbering system and allow this to be the first year of O, or AO1. Last year, would be the Bad Before O or BBO1. Our nation was founded not in 1776, but in BBO232. But now, with the sweetness and light of Obama's smooth talk, the rest of the nations swoon! The Iranians put down their bombs, Al Queda turns itself in - comforted that they will not longer be tortured or prosecuted, Kim Jong Il tears down the fences singing Kumbaya with his disarmed soldiers at the border and Hugo Chavez and Fidel now say that the United States is a great nation that should strengthen and prosper instead of being destroyed.
Well, that's the vision anyway...how's it playing so far? Hmm, not like the dream. That's because it is just that - a dream, a fantasy. With his messianic complex going before, this guy really believes he can make the "ice stop melting" and can talk to the animals. The only evil that exists in this tormented world is that of "right wing extremists." The sad reality is that evil does exist - sadder still, is that the folks who keep that evil away from our shores and call it for what it is , are the targets of this administration. What we saw on 9/11 was not caused by regular nice guys who just couldn't take America's arrogance anymore. No, what we saw was evil incarnate. We saw people who believed they could do what they did because we had done nothing to respond to prior aggressions like the U.S.S. Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa. They thought we were finished, kaput, afraid to fight. Thank God we showed them they were wrong. And like or hate George W. Bush, after 9/11, in 8 years we were not attacked again on our soil. Given the direction this administration is taking, I have serious doubts that another 8 will pass without an attack. And this leads me to the falacy of the second part of the "Premise of O."
Christ is the only figure in history who created strength because of his weakness and he paid a gruesome price for it. Of course, that he was also God, as Christians believe, might have had something to do with it too. And his message was compelling and noble. To turn the other cheek when you have been wronged as an individual is a noble thing to do that advances society. To turn the other cheek when you are a nation is a path to destruction and termination as a society. Does BHO really believe he can pull off at a national level in AO1, what Christ could barely do for a ragged population in BBO2009?
Let's take the notion of "torture," as a prime example. As I am sure you already know, BHO has declassified portions of the CIA memoranda on "torture" in the aftermath of 9/11. They are carefully leaving out the parts of the memos that spell out what we gained from these "tortures," and how many lives were saved. When we talk of "torture" though, we really need to ask five questions:
1. Who is being "tortured?"
2. How are we "torturing?"
3. Why are we "torturing?"
4. Did it work?
5. Are we safer moving forward now that we have exposed our methods?
Question number one - umm, yes you in the back...do you have the answer?
"Yeah, we are torturing murderous, suicidal, maniacal Muslim extremists who believe that their God calls on them to kill people who don't subscribe to their religion. These people would gladly impose a tyranical theocracy on the whole world where women would be sent back to a caste lower than farm animals. They have murdered thousands upon thousands of their own people and believe that no one is off limits as a target."
Very good! You obviously are not a memer of the Obama administration! I would only add to that fine answer that these are the same people that like sawing off live people's heads on YouTube for fun. Now this is not to get into a moral equivalency argument, but it should serve to remind people that the prisoners that were "tortured" were not members of the Vienna Boys Choir.
Question number two...yes, you with your hand up on the right there...
"The worst thing we are doing to these folks is submitting them to a treatment that makes them feel they are drowning - scary stuff I am sure - same stuff that anyone who went through the military's SERE (Search Evasion Resistance Escape) school would experience. It's not as bad for those folks though because they know they are not going to be killed...oh wait, the bad guys know that too now...but anyway, some sleep deprivation, maybe a little humiliation in the mix."
Wow, this is a good class! Let's take a break and watch a referesher video:
OK - on to question three - WHY are we torturing? Let's see, you in the red shirt with the beagle logo...
"Torture is used to gather actionable intelligence. Our problem after 9/11 was particularly difficult because we didn't have knowledge of any specific plots, we just knew there was a good chance we would get hit again. There is a particularly useful discussion on this over at Stratfor."
Whoa, how did you get a hyperlink into your verbal answer? Yes, the Stratfor piece is very useful in understanding this issue and you are right. In no way is it indiscriminate, common or rampant...we are still very much the good guys. Shame that the left can't bring themselves to look at us that way, but compared to the enemy, our guys are saints.
Q4 - did it work? Yes, the nice looking gentleman with bald pate and glasses...are you Dick Cheney?
"No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. The short answer is 'yes, it worked.' We don't know the details yet because those portions of the memos have not been de-classified. But we had eight years of no attacks on US soil and numerous hints of plots that were foiled. In short, American lives were saved."
Now the biggy - who would like to answer question number 5 - are we safer without them? Yes, the lady with the "Texas Longhorns" t-shirt -
"Hell no. I mean, time will tell, but the odds are not good. Does BHO REALLY believe that by telling the Islamokooks what to expect if they end up in one of our 'hotels,' that they are now not going to join the Jihad? This guy is dumber than soap..."
Ma'am - please, he is the President of the United States...let us not stoop to the hatred that the left vented on Mr. Bush for eight long years.
Well, that wraps up this portion of our class on why being weaker does not make you stronger!
So, to sum up and restate the Premise of O - we have a leader who through naivete or lack of intelligence beleives that he can make the lion lie down with the lamb...or better, he can be the lamb that lies down with the lion? Either way, he has set us on a path that was last attemted by Jimmy Carter. Carter is arguably the reason we are where we are now as it was under his "watch" that the first major blow of the Muslim world was landed on us with no response - the taking of our Embassy in Tehran. We tried talking then too and it didn't get us very far. The world is a much more dangerous place now. Let us pray...
Rumble on!
*Dorothy Rabinowitz has an excellent column on this here.
"What's for Dinner?"
In September, 1982, I was part of a U.S. Navy Task Force that was taking part in a large amphibious operation in Northern Europe. Ahh, the good old days when the Russkies were the bad guys and the thought of tanks crashing through the Fulda Gap kept everyone awake at night down at the Pentagon. The task force pulled into Portsmouth, England for a few days and it coincided with a good chunk of the Royal Navy's Falkland Islands Battle Group coming home.
The Battle for the Falklands was a dust-up between Argentina (which called the islands the Maldives) and the British. The Argentinians had siezed the islands which were little more than sheep-herders outposts, claiming them to be Argentine in April, 1981. England had other thoughts. It was early in the days of Maggie Thatcher and the UK was, like us across the pond, re-building her military. That a 3rd rate Navy could so blatantly swat at the English Lion was enormously embarrassing. It took almost 18 months for the British to respond. It was not without cost, either. The Argentine pilots, flying American made A-4 Skyhawks and French Etendard's would send the HMS Sheffield, the HMS Coventry and a huge supply ship, the Conveyor to the briny deep. In the end the Royal Navy and Marines prevailed though and the islands flew under the Union Jack again.
So here I was that fall, a sailor who had been at sea for some three months roaming around Portsmouth, England at the same time that their heroes were returning...oh well. I ended up in a couple of diplomatic exchange efforts with the Royal Navy and toured several of their returning vessels, including the HMS Broadsword. The Broadsword had been in the thick of it outside the Battle of San Carlos Bay in the Falklands.
One of the Broadsword's officers relayed a story to me about that day that has stuck with me ever since. Apparently, in the thick of battle, with the planes buzzing all around them...popping up off the wave tops to fire missiles or shoot cannon blasts at them, the Captain emerged on the bridge. Scared and worried faces met him as a report came in that the forward gun mount was not functioning. Nervous orders were being yelled to the helmsman to try to position the ship in such a way that the aft mount would be engaged to maximum effectiveness. "We were genuinely frightened that we were not going to make it out alive," my friend related. The Captain strode calmly to the center window of the bridge, surveyed the foredeck and asked for the Wardroom mess cook to come up to the bridge. "He looked bored, " I was told. A couple of tense moments passed, including another strafing by an Argentine aircraft. When the mess cook came on the bridge, the Captain turned around and in a voice just loud enough to be heard asked "What is for dinner this evening?" "We all knew at that moment that we were going to get by," my host related, "it was extraordinary courage and leadership."
This is an incredible and true tale of courage under fire. The Captain accurately gauged the temperament of his crew, knew the danger they were in and carefully chose the right words and actions to calm his team and compel them to perform great deeds. This Captain had no doubt been in the Royal Navy for at least 15-20 years. He had risen through the ranks learning all aspects of seamanship, engineering, weapons, intelligence, tactics and leadership so that at the point in time he was needed most, far away from any support system, he could perform in such a way that benefited his ship, his crew, his fleet and his mission. Now the HMS Broadsword is about 430 feet long and displaces 4,400 tons with a crew of about 220 men. The leader of this highly compact unit had more years of experience on just this one piece of the Royal Navy than Obama has on anything...ANYTHING. Just like the Royal Navy, no one assumes command of a United States Navy warship without YEARS of experience, and yet we have voted into power a man who has less experience than a Seaman Deuce in the U.S. Fleet and he is in charge of a whole lot more than a 430 foot long frigate!Contrast the behaviour of this fine Naval Officer with what we are seeing coming out of the White House right now as they attempt to pass a "stimulus bill." Remember the opening scene in "The Big Chill," where the minister is talking about Alex's suicide and he asks "Where did Alex's hope go?" Well, where did Obama's "hope" go? Now, we are being told that if the House and Senate don't pass this bill by the end of this week, that the results will be "catastrophic?" "A failure to act and act now will turn a crisis into a catastrophe?" says Mr. Hopeandchange.
We're getting ready to spend ANOTHER $1,000,000,000,000 and we can't even debate it or hold a hearing or two to discuss what might work. This is not leadership, it is intimidation. We didn't get into this mess overnight, nor are we going to get out of it overnight. Prudent leadership would call for some bi-partisan analysis of the roots of the problem so that a sane piece of legislation can be crafted that addresses those roots and builds a stronger economy for us to go forward with. Democrats blithely throw around the accusation that it was George Bush's fault and that there was no regulation! Republicans, just as blithely throw out that it was Carter and Clinton's fault and there was no regulation of Fannie and Freddie. But what is before the Congress right now is a bill that addresses NEITHER! It simply tosses about a "quadrapillion" dollars in the air and hopes they land in the hands of future Democrat voters. These people have clearly forgotten where the money comes from...you either tax the people or you print it. Both options are bad.
But back to this leadership issue. Barry and his team have so little experience, so little knowledge of how to get things done in Washington that they are relying on the Democrat leadership in the House and Senate to do it for them. The result is a liberal get-even measure for all the budgets since 1994. It is insane. If you have the constitution for it, you can download a copy of the House version here. Don't take my word for it, read it...read about the "Weatherization Assistance Program" - that's on page 641, where you get to pay to get someone else's attic insulated. On pages 9-11 you will find how much each of the existing Departments are going to get for "oversight" of the money they will be spending...it totals over $225 MILLION - just for the oversight...and that doesn't include the establishment of the "Recovery Act Accountability and Trasparency Board." This will make your blood boil, which is a big part of the reason for the haste. Obama's vaunted "transparency" is showing that he is not ready to lead and is terrified that the general public is starting to figure this out...thus the panic.
We have put in office someone who is far more comfortable (and highly gifted) on the campaign trail. He was at it again today, giving stump speeches to "town hall meetings," that featured such great questions as "when is the money allocated for Elkhart going to get to us?" These poor dupes think that somewhere in this 700-page beast is a line item that says "Elkhart, Indiana....$40 gajillion." And there is Barry O selling it..."if they will just pass this bill, it won't be long." Further, he KNOWS it's not going to work. If it was so wonderful please answer the following questions:
1. What do you need Republican votes for? Pass it, watch the economy fly and have the Dems take all the credit!
2. Why is it "going to get worse, a lot worse?" Umm, err...gotcha!
3. Why not slow the process down, open up the books and demonstrate to the American people that this is the greatest thing since vinyl records.
This is a scam. Barry O is not leading, because he doesn't know how to lead. He lacks the experience, the know how and the vision to see what is good for the economy and the country. He has his teleprompter and his basic belief system. Preeminent in the latter is the fundamental, down to the innards of his gut belief that government is the solution and that he as government is the best solution. He is the philosophical negative of Ronald Reagan. Reagan knew how to lead and how to inspire a nation. He also famously knew that government WAS the problem...it still is, and its about to get worse.
I picture Barry O onboard the HMS Broadsword at the height of the battle...running around in circles, feverishly pointing at the next Argentine jet to pop up over the waves....his shipmates would have been appalled then. His countrymen, outside of the cult members, are now.
Rumble on!
TRAINS
On February 11, 1861, a tall and visibly tired man boarded a train in Springfield, Illinois. At the Tolono Station in Springfield, he turned and addressed the crowd with the following words: "I am leaving you on an errand of national importance, attended as you are aware with considerable difficulties. Let us believe as some poet has expressed it 'behind the cloud the sun is still shining.' I bid you an affectionate farewell." Abraham Lincoln was on his way to Washington D.C. to become the 16th President of the United States. The
train, pictured here, would wind through the Midwest, passing through Indianapolis, Cincinnati, heading north into New York to stop in Buffalo and then southward toward Philadelphia and Baltimore. The route would be repeated four years later in reverse as Lincoln's body was returned to his home state. On the outbound route, Lincoln made over one hundred speeches. One of the more prophetic ones being at Independence Hall on February 22, 1861, where he raised the flag at Independence Hall to commemorate George Washington's birthday and said:
To put this in context, On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union and on February 1, 1861 along with six other states, the Confederate States of America was born. Four more would soon follow. Matters of "national importance" and "considerable difficulties" in deed. The War, or the "Wahr" as I grew up knowing it, would ultimately cost almost 1.1 million lives due to casualties, disease, suicide, naval engagements etc. From Faust's "Encyclopedia of the Civil War:
After Lincoln has spoken at Independence Hall, he was advised by Allan Pinkerton that a plot on his life was afoot. Lincoln persisted on speaking to the Pennsylvania legislature and riding the train to Baltimore. There, he was disguised (some reports say he was dressed as a woman) and smuggled into Washington D.C.
Now, aside from some interesting reminiscences of the War between the States, I am drawn to this story because of the continuing urge of the current President-Elect to try to channel Abraham Lincoln. It has been announced that he will re-enact the last leg of Lincoln's journey to Washington by boarding a train in Philadelphia to ride to Washington. They will go off the beaten path to go pick up commuter Joe Biden
in Wilmington, Delaware and then continue anon. So, I ask, what disguise will Obama wear to be smuggled into Washington from Baltimore? He has disguised himself quite well as a "centrist" and a "moderate" so far. The "Office of the President Elect" has further announced that he will be sworn in using Lincoln's Bible. While that is probably a relief to some who were afraid he would choose a Koran, I find the attempt at connectivity revolting. If "Barack Hussein Obama" (the name he will use to be sworn in) had studied Lincoln as closely as he claims he has, he would realize that one trait Ol' Abe was known for (aside from always getting picked to play center in pick-up basketball games) was humility.
When Lincoln went to dedicate the Gettysburg Cemetary and delivered the now famous "Gettysburg Address," he purposely kept his remarks very short. Disappointingly short to the gathered crowd, but he felt that it was inappropriate for the President to hog the clock when the Cemetary Commission had hired an orator, Edward Everett, who spoke for two hours before Lincoln mounted the dais. Lincoln knew that his role was governance, not showmanship. The contemporary reaction of the time to the Gettysburg Address was overall not good...his "hometown newspaper," the Chicago Times said "the cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of the president." But Everett knew better. Writing to Lincoln the next day he said: "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
But then there's Barry! He's the star of the show...our Savior...our own Barachrist Superstar!!! Oh, and did you know that we have a crisis????!!!!! My God, the economy is in the tank! Unemployment will reach double digits!!!!! The world as we know it is coming to an end!!!!!! Oh, and that's Obama speaking, not the silver hair plugged man from Delaware. But not to worry! Since the crisis is so huge, so enormous, so unimaginably horrible, let's just give all the power to Barry and let him solve all our problems and salve all our fears. It worked for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela! It worked for Lenin in Russia...why shouldn't it work here? Hope and Change! Hope and Change! Chant mindlessly along with me now: "Yes we can!"
Oh, that reminds me, didn't the Israelis and Hamas get the memo that world peace would reign after January 21st? Couldn't they have just waited a couple of more weeks for the flowers to bloom and love to conquer all from the Land of Hopeandchange? Obama would do well to heed the words of Charles Simmons, "Integrity is the first step to greatness."
Now, can we put things in perspective? I am reminded of a wonderful saying that Senior Chief Wonder, USN taught me when I was a tenderfoot Ensign: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" Does the current financial situation compare in ANY way, shape or form, to the condition of the Union when Lincoln headed to Washington? If you answered "yes," to this question, you need to take a hard look at yourself. Like me, your 401K may be down 40%...you may be temporarily out of a job...you may not be able to get a car loan to buy that cool Congressional Motors special-alternate-fuels vehicle BUT, put it in perspective people, the dissolution of the United States is not upon us (yet)! I feel like Bill Murray in "Stripes:" "We're not Watusis, we're not Spartans, we're Americans!" It's about 2:49 into the following clip:
There is another irony in all this Lincoln adulation on the part of B.H.O. Lincoln inherited a divided country, but in assembling his cabinet, he not only appointed his most bitter rivals, he appointed folks from every region of the Union (getting secessionist Southerners to play along didn't work out to well, but he tried):
train, pictured here, would wind through the Midwest, passing through Indianapolis, Cincinnati, heading north into New York to stop in Buffalo and then southward toward Philadelphia and Baltimore. The route would be repeated four years later in reverse as Lincoln's body was returned to his home state. On the outbound route, Lincoln made over one hundred speeches. One of the more prophetic ones being at Independence Hall on February 22, 1861, where he raised the flag at Independence Hall to commemorate George Washington's birthday and said:"I have often inquired of myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. "
To put this in context, On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union and on February 1, 1861 along with six other states, the Confederate States of America was born. Four more would soon follow. Matters of "national importance" and "considerable difficulties" in deed. The War, or the "Wahr" as I grew up knowing it, would ultimately cost almost 1.1 million lives due to casualties, disease, suicide, naval engagements etc. From Faust's "Encyclopedia of the Civil War:
"The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. Even if one survived a wound, any projectile that hit bone in either an arm or a leg almost invariably necessitated amputation. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.Like many Southern boys, I grew up dreaming that maybe if I had been the last man over the wall into the Union guns at Pickett's Charge in Gettysburg I might have made the difference. I have stood on that hallowed spot many times and in my youth cried that on this spot the dream died. As an older, wiser man I cry for the cost of poor decisions. Needless to say, in my younger days, I didn't think much of Mr. Lincoln. Now, I am grateful for what he did and admire the true genius of the man. He was a conniving politician like the rest of them but, I think, he had a sense of honor. Freeing the slaves was only part of what the war was fought about, but he deserves the credit and I won't get into a drawn out fight about states rights here.
In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost."
After Lincoln has spoken at Independence Hall, he was advised by Allan Pinkerton that a plot on his life was afoot. Lincoln persisted on speaking to the Pennsylvania legislature and riding the train to Baltimore. There, he was disguised (some reports say he was dressed as a woman) and smuggled into Washington D.C.
Now, aside from some interesting reminiscences of the War between the States, I am drawn to this story because of the continuing urge of the current President-Elect to try to channel Abraham Lincoln. It has been announced that he will re-enact the last leg of Lincoln's journey to Washington by boarding a train in Philadelphia to ride to Washington. They will go off the beaten path to go pick up commuter Joe Biden
in Wilmington, Delaware and then continue anon. So, I ask, what disguise will Obama wear to be smuggled into Washington from Baltimore? He has disguised himself quite well as a "centrist" and a "moderate" so far. The "Office of the President Elect" has further announced that he will be sworn in using Lincoln's Bible. While that is probably a relief to some who were afraid he would choose a Koran, I find the attempt at connectivity revolting. If "Barack Hussein Obama" (the name he will use to be sworn in) had studied Lincoln as closely as he claims he has, he would realize that one trait Ol' Abe was known for (aside from always getting picked to play center in pick-up basketball games) was humility.When Lincoln went to dedicate the Gettysburg Cemetary and delivered the now famous "Gettysburg Address," he purposely kept his remarks very short. Disappointingly short to the gathered crowd, but he felt that it was inappropriate for the President to hog the clock when the Cemetary Commission had hired an orator, Edward Everett, who spoke for two hours before Lincoln mounted the dais. Lincoln knew that his role was governance, not showmanship. The contemporary reaction of the time to the Gettysburg Address was overall not good...his "hometown newspaper," the Chicago Times said "the cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat, and dishwatery utterances of the president." But Everett knew better. Writing to Lincoln the next day he said: "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes."
But then there's Barry! He's the star of the show...our Savior...our own Barachrist Superstar!!! Oh, and did you know that we have a crisis????!!!!! My God, the economy is in the tank! Unemployment will reach double digits!!!!! The world as we know it is coming to an end!!!!!! Oh, and that's Obama speaking, not the silver hair plugged man from Delaware. But not to worry! Since the crisis is so huge, so enormous, so unimaginably horrible, let's just give all the power to Barry and let him solve all our problems and salve all our fears. It worked for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela! It worked for Lenin in Russia...why shouldn't it work here? Hope and Change! Hope and Change! Chant mindlessly along with me now: "Yes we can!"Oh, that reminds me, didn't the Israelis and Hamas get the memo that world peace would reign after January 21st? Couldn't they have just waited a couple of more weeks for the flowers to bloom and love to conquer all from the Land of Hopeandchange? Obama would do well to heed the words of Charles Simmons, "Integrity is the first step to greatness."
Now, can we put things in perspective? I am reminded of a wonderful saying that Senior Chief Wonder, USN taught me when I was a tenderfoot Ensign: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!" Does the current financial situation compare in ANY way, shape or form, to the condition of the Union when Lincoln headed to Washington? If you answered "yes," to this question, you need to take a hard look at yourself. Like me, your 401K may be down 40%...you may be temporarily out of a job...you may not be able to get a car loan to buy that cool Congressional Motors special-alternate-fuels vehicle BUT, put it in perspective people, the dissolution of the United States is not upon us (yet)! I feel like Bill Murray in "Stripes:" "We're not Watusis, we're not Spartans, we're Americans!" It's about 2:49 into the following clip:
There is another irony in all this Lincoln adulation on the part of B.H.O. Lincoln inherited a divided country, but in assembling his cabinet, he not only appointed his most bitter rivals, he appointed folks from every region of the Union (getting secessionist Southerners to play along didn't work out to well, but he tried):
"So New England got Gideon Welles of Connecticut as Secretary of the Navy. The mid-Atlantic got William M. Seward of New York as Secretary of State and Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania as Secretary of War. Ohio got Salmon P. Chase as Secretary of the Treasury. The border states got Attorney General Edward Bates of Missouri and Postmaster General Montgomery Blair of Maryland. The West of that day -- today's Midwest -- got Caleb Smith of Indiana as Secretary of the Interior. Lincoln even approached a Southerner -- Rep. James A. Gilmer of North Carolina, a former Whig -- to serve in his cabinet, but Gilmer declined."
To date, one Southerner has been appointed by Barry...an ex-mayor of Dallas to be a trade representative. The South is paying the political price for not supporting the junior senator from Illinois. I thought "unity" was one of the principal values in the Land of Hopeandchange.
In all, the Lincoln morphing is eerie and more than a little strange. But like the Greek Columns at the DNC gala in Denver, I suspect it's all about image with no substance behind. The American people will be paying the price for this lack of substance and, in the words of H.L. Mencken, we will "get it good and hard." But we will survive...this is 2009, not 1861.
Rumble on!
A Big Tent Revival
One of the big themes that is emerging early in the post-election circular firing squad that is the Republican Party of today is that social conservatives cost McCain the election and that they need to be drummed out of the party. If it wasn't for the Jesus-freaks, McCain would have won in a landslide, because they really creep the Independents out. It was all that Bible-thumping that "Youbetcha" Palin was doing that scared the electorate away. Strange how facts can get in the way...this from the First Amendment Center right here in little ol' Nashville:
Come again...did you just say 65%? Now I am not in favor of establishing a Christian nation. But I am a strong supporter of religion's role in the public forum and feel that much has been lost without it. I was over at another blogsite arguing a similar point. There is a tremendous misunderstanding that has made it into our common belief system. It is the notion that the first amendment guaranteed us "separation of church and state" AND that such separation means that church stuff is allowed nowhere near state stuff...ixnay, onay, don't go there! Well, as Sargeant Friday might say, "just the facts ma'am:"
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... they did not want a national church a la Church of England. Escaping from the clutches of a state run church once is enough for a lifetime, ask the refugees from the Taliban.
2. ...or prohibiting free exercise thereof... OK, that's the freedom of religion part.
3. ...or abridging the freedom of: speech, the press, right to assemble, right to petition the government. - nothing in here about the Church shall not be allowed anywhere near a government building.
So, the country-club-republicans (and their liberal allies) want us to believe that if it wasn't for fear of some Christian Christ Centric Clergyocracy McCain would have won. And, following that logic one step further, if ONLY he had gone more to the center, Republicans would not have experienced a rout. Well, what are the facts? This from a study over at American University:
Furthermore, Catholics, whose values line up with the Christian Right voted for Barry O 54% to 45%. Sadly, Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion candidate in history. Despite a terrific performance in the Saddleback forum, McCain simply did not energize Catholics enough to make them overcome the excitement around BHO. So let me sum up the election thusly (and I have already done so extensively in an earlier post):
1. Republicans lost because the Democrats had a far better candidate who ran as a CONSERVATIVE! (Tax cuts, hold people responsible, hope for America, yadda yadda yadda). Our guy ran as a moderate - err, I mean, "maverick."
2. They did NOT lose because the values held by the Christian right turned off a large percentage of the electorate. They lost because other than Sarah Palin and a brief show of hands at Saddleback, the campaign expressed NO VALUES. We didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings!
If we can get over the idea that Social Conservatives need to be thrown overboard, then we can get back to the notion that I advance which is this. The American people are hungry for religion and values to be part of the national discussion. They are sick and tired of having to say "Happy Holidays" to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. They are sick and tired of a culture that glorifies the most sinister forms of sex and violence. They are looking for a champion of good...you know, someone like this:
We have so expunged faith and values from the public schools and the public discourse that it is no surprise that we have CEO's that behave like they do...taking millions of dollars in parachutes as they exit the companies they have wrecked. There is no remorse if your only value is to "get rich." There is no responsibility if all you see is yourself. A culture of success will not long stand if it is devoid of responsibility and remorse and we are well down that path. If the Republicans want to truly turn the ship around, they need to become a party of opposition not accomodation. They need to understand that the American people are hungry for a leadership that braves the media waters of political correctness and shouts "Stop, enough is enough." We have sacrificed our future on the altar of diversity, but it is not too late. As they adjust to the new reality of a Democrat majority (and possible super-majority in the Senate), Republicans need to embrace the groups that they have run away from in this last election cycle and get back to work reaffirming our core conservative principles. Then a candidates can be fielded that offer a true choice to the electorate instead of the choice between hot water couched in syruppy rhetoric and lukewarm water couched in dry droll. After two years of the Obamots, the American people will be ready for true change...maybe the Republicans won't screw it up this time!
Rumble on!
Sixty-five percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55% believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation, according to the “State of the First Amendment 2007” national survey released Sept. 11 by the First Amendment Center.
Come again...did you just say 65%? Now I am not in favor of establishing a Christian nation. But I am a strong supporter of religion's role in the public forum and feel that much has been lost without it. I was over at another blogsite arguing a similar point. There is a tremendous misunderstanding that has made it into our common belief system. It is the notion that the first amendment guaranteed us "separation of church and state" AND that such separation means that church stuff is allowed nowhere near state stuff...ixnay, onay, don't go there! Well, as Sargeant Friday might say, "just the facts ma'am:"
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.Anyone recognize that? Yes, you in the back..."the First Amendment?"...correctamundo! So what were our Founding Fathers saying? Break it down:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... they did not want a national church a la Church of England. Escaping from the clutches of a state run church once is enough for a lifetime, ask the refugees from the Taliban.
2. ...or prohibiting free exercise thereof... OK, that's the freedom of religion part.
3. ...or abridging the freedom of: speech, the press, right to assemble, right to petition the government. - nothing in here about the Church shall not be allowed anywhere near a government building.
So, the country-club-republicans (and their liberal allies) want us to believe that if it wasn't for fear of some Christian Christ Centric Clergyocracy McCain would have won. And, following that logic one step further, if ONLY he had gone more to the center, Republicans would not have experienced a rout. Well, what are the facts? This from a study over at American University:
A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout. The percentage of eligible citizens voting Republican declined to 28.7 percent down 1.3 percentage points from 2004. Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 percentage points from 28.7 percent of eligibles to 31.3 percent.Consider this too - Obama was very clever not to offend the Christian Right. This from a pro-Hillary leftist site:
The big story here is the Christian right. While ostensibly, the Saddleback debate put McCain on top and no one showed up at Obama’s Values tour, it is clear to me that deals were made behind closed doors.
The anecdote about the Bush voter who stayed home because this time his pastor didn’t tell him to go is even more significant if one considers the passage of proposition 8 in California.
The Obama campaign allowed Obama’s voice to be used in robocalls saying Obama opposed gay marriage.
B0bots were not told to vote against it. They did vote for a proposition taking care of chickens. left the gays out - as price for the Christian right staying home.
During the primary, Bush’s spiritual adviser endorsed Obama. Said he told Bush about it and agreed. Bush in turn added: He (Obama) is a good man.
Look at the numbers again: PUMAs voting McCain might have overcame the - REAL - new voters.
The real difference in numbers is the nearly 6 million Bush voters whose ministers didn’t tell to go out and vote.
Furthermore, Catholics, whose values line up with the Christian Right voted for Barry O 54% to 45%. Sadly, Catholics voted for the most pro-abortion candidate in history. Despite a terrific performance in the Saddleback forum, McCain simply did not energize Catholics enough to make them overcome the excitement around BHO. So let me sum up the election thusly (and I have already done so extensively in an earlier post):
1. Republicans lost because the Democrats had a far better candidate who ran as a CONSERVATIVE! (Tax cuts, hold people responsible, hope for America, yadda yadda yadda). Our guy ran as a moderate - err, I mean, "maverick."
2. They did NOT lose because the values held by the Christian right turned off a large percentage of the electorate. They lost because other than Sarah Palin and a brief show of hands at Saddleback, the campaign expressed NO VALUES. We didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings!
If we can get over the idea that Social Conservatives need to be thrown overboard, then we can get back to the notion that I advance which is this. The American people are hungry for religion and values to be part of the national discussion. They are sick and tired of having to say "Happy Holidays" to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. They are sick and tired of a culture that glorifies the most sinister forms of sex and violence. They are looking for a champion of good...you know, someone like this:
We have so expunged faith and values from the public schools and the public discourse that it is no surprise that we have CEO's that behave like they do...taking millions of dollars in parachutes as they exit the companies they have wrecked. There is no remorse if your only value is to "get rich." There is no responsibility if all you see is yourself. A culture of success will not long stand if it is devoid of responsibility and remorse and we are well down that path. If the Republicans want to truly turn the ship around, they need to become a party of opposition not accomodation. They need to understand that the American people are hungry for a leadership that braves the media waters of political correctness and shouts "Stop, enough is enough." We have sacrificed our future on the altar of diversity, but it is not too late. As they adjust to the new reality of a Democrat majority (and possible super-majority in the Senate), Republicans need to embrace the groups that they have run away from in this last election cycle and get back to work reaffirming our core conservative principles. Then a candidates can be fielded that offer a true choice to the electorate instead of the choice between hot water couched in syruppy rhetoric and lukewarm water couched in dry droll. After two years of the Obamots, the American people will be ready for true change...maybe the Republicans won't screw it up this time!
Rumble on!
O Force One?
OK, this is getting really sick...check out these shots from the interior of Obama's campaign plane:
Did you catch it? The middle shot..."Obama '08, President" - WTF? WTFF??
This guy is going to win the megalomania award of the century.
Rumble on!
Did you catch it? The middle shot..."Obama '08, President" - WTF? WTFF??
This guy is going to win the megalomania award of the century.
Rumble on!
Santa Obamista
So I am listening to some music last night - the London soundtrack of Evita, and it hits me. I've been all wrong! I've been comparing the Obamaphenom to the Nuremberg Rallies and while there is still a lot of truth to the stagecraft over substance and robotic reaction from the masses, the deification of the central character was missing. I mean the crowds loved Hitler and all, and they were certain the trains would run on time AND they would get to go kick some Frenchy ass and all that...but they didn't think he could cure the sick. BUT, Evita...the "Santa Peronista!" Hell, she could solve all the country's ills and cure the children. Just like Barry O! Compare and contrast these two images:
No that's NOT Hillary in the second one, stop it! That's Eva Duarte Peron. And she could really wow a crowd with some stem-winder speeches. She promised her "descamisados," or "shirtless ones" the world. And they bought that pap. It worked well for her and her fascist husband, Juan Domingo Peron.
Come to think of it, maybe Obama IS Evita ("Little Eva") reincarnated in a sexually and racially negative fashion. (I mean negative like old fashioned film where the black was white and the...oh, come on, you get it.) That would make Michelle Obama...Peron? Could be. Certainly in the Peron's case, Juan was the idealist who really believed that with a little military control things could run better. Eva just wanted the adulation and the money. Look at the parallels between these two:
1. Childhood: Eva came from a pretty mixed up family with a biological father that abandoned them because the mother was not "of class." Barry came from a pretty mixed up family with a biological father that abandoned them because the mother was not of...
2. Early years: Eva grew up in the provincial town of Junin. At the age of 16, she moved to Buenos Aires, the capital, because that was where the action was. Early reports of her childhood point to a promiscuity with sex and alcohol. Barry grew up in the provincial state of Hawaii. Eventually moved to Chicago, because that was where the action was (for community organizers at least). Early reports of his childhood point to a pormiscuity with drugs and alcohol.
3. Early rise: After getting her "class creds" by marrying Juan Peron, Eva became head of the broadcasters union, a job she was totally unqualified for. She started a daily program titled "Toward a Better Future" where she used ordinary language to communicate to the working class women of Argentina. The themes of "hope" and "promise for the future" were common in these shows. After getting his "race creds" by joining Reverend Wright's congregation, Barry became a state senator and then a US Senator, jobs he was totally unqualified for. He gave a speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 as a candidate for US Senate, titled "The Audacity of Hope."
4. European Tour: In 1947, Evita embarked on a tour of Europe meeting with several heads of state and wowing the crowds along the way. Ironically, it was called the "Rainbow Tour." In 2008, Obama embarked on a tour of Europe (throw in the Middle East and Afghanistan, thanks to faster airliners) meeting with several heads of state and wowing the crowds along the way.
Well, you get the picture...now look at these two pictures:
Dangit, I get confused, which is which? Oh, the top one is the "now famous" speech in Berlin. The second one is Eva outside the Casa Rosada (Argentina's version of the White House) greeting adoring crowds. One thing is for sure though, the Perons could REALLY raise a crowd. It's been reported (a lot!) that there were 200,000 for the Berlin show...try 2,000,000 for a rally in Buenos Aires:
Well, I don't put much credence in head count. As the poet Robert Penn Warren brilliantly observed "truth don't lie in the number of voices." When Reagan gave his famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate, there were 10,000 riot control police there because the Germans hated him. He was, after all a "nuclear cowboy" bent on the destruction of the world! But his speech had real impact. Barry O's performance is little more than Chinese food...tastes good, but doesn't stay with you.
I am particularly wary of personality cults. Michelle, take note...this from Wikipedia on Eva's promotion of her husband:
Evita also sought to create a personality cult around her husband, whom she elevated to nearly divine status, often comparing him to Christ and saying that all Peronists must be ready to die for Perón. Fraser and Navarro say that this apotheosis was what ultimately corrupted Perón and debased the Peronist movement. In light of Evita's often verbose praise for her husband, the slightest criticism of Juan Perón was easily interpreted as unpatriotic. Evita even stated explicitly that only the Peronists were truly Argentine, and anyone who was anti-Peronist was not truly Argentine.
"Perón is the heart, the soul, the nerve, and the reality of the Argentine people. We all know that there is only one man in our movement with his own source of light. We all feed off of that light. And that man is Perón!" — 1951 speech by Eva Perón
M.O. - you have got some catching up to do!
So, in the end, what happened to the Perons? Eva set up a private "foundation" to "take care of the poor children." No records were kept, but millions of pesos ended up in Peronista Swiss Bank accounts. She fought a gritty battle with cancer and lost. Juan ended up being hounded from office as the country decended into anarchy before the military took over. Pretty much what happens throughout history when you get cult followings of a person who's primary purpose in life is self-aggrandizement.
We don't know how this train ride is going to turn out, but one has to study the Obama entourage carefully...who will be the Che? Remember, Che was an Argentine! His association with the Perons was passing...he wanted the Evita Foundation to buy him a jeep for his "research." They apparently turned his request down. But myths are made from cults and as the musical "Evita" implies, Che and Eva were close and his disgust with how the reality differed from the ideal resulted in his moving on to friendlier venues like Cuba. Could it be the newly bearded Bill Richardson??
Well, they have to win first.
Rumble on!
Barrack Hussein Superstar!
This was the image that the Obama campaign had waited for...this was the photo. He's a Superstar! They love him in Europe...ergo, we should love him in the United States. (Unless of course we are small minded, uneducated and believe the foolish notion that Americans should pick their President.) They would have preferred to have it with the Brandenburg Gate behind the Messiuhhh, but the Victory Column would have to do. Oh, although it was widely reported in the press, I thought I would reiterate that two popular German acts -- reggae artist Patrice and rock band Reamonn played for free to attract...uhmmmm, warm up the crowd. Now I know that the B.O. campaign wanted to have the image of their guy looking something like this
You know, Christ feeding the 5,000 from the loaves and fishes...or perhaps from frankfurters and loaves as parodied in a brilliant piece in the London Times this morning (take a minute and click that link folks, you won't regret it!) But I keep coming back to images like this:
Maybe it's Germans? Maybe it's the strained stagecraft over statesmanship that bothers me, but the parallels are downright creepy. I have written about this before, the Riefenstahl effect. This is truly image over substance. Read the words to Big O's speech in Berlin and few items pop out. But let's look at it from the top. After the usual "thank you's" he briefly tells his lineage of being the son of a goat herder and a girl from the "heartland of America" and then he states that he is a "proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world."
OK, stop the tape.
What is he saying when he says he is a "citizen of the world?" First, he is asserting his "creds" for being there in the first place because he is not there as a "candidate" - of course not! But the air of arrogance blows strong in that sentence. "I'm not just some yuckster from over the pond in Bermuda shorts and black socks, oh no, I am sophisticated like you! I'm a global guy!" Hey, Barry - where does one get one of these "citizen of the world" passports?
OK, roll the tape.
Barry, you rolled right past that little dust up called World War II which is the event that got us to Berlin in the first place. Berlin was the capital of Germany. We let the Russians "liberate" it in 1945 then we divvied it up into quarters and all that fun stuff. Problem was, the Sovs didn't like "talking" with us, so they up and built a wall and put a whole lot of hardware on the border and around the city leaving us with no options. Thank God, people like you had not been in charge or we would not have had the military to do the job.
OK, let's continue...
So the world stood as one. Well, not quite, Barry. It took a very courageous American named Ronald Reagan (this link takes you to the text of a real speech given in Berlin), and equally courageous woman named Maggie Thatcher, and a Pope named John Paul II that refused to let western civilization drift under the yoke of the evil of communism. The rest of the world, including most of the citizens of Germany, didn't give a rat's ass! Reagan knew the Soviet economy was teetering and that we could push them over the edge because (listen closely BO!) planned economies run by the state don't work! Maggie kept a toe-hold for sanity in Europe and Pope John Paul brought the real hope of faith back to the darkness of communist controlled central Europe. OK, now that we've cleared that up, let's move on.
Obamuhhh wanders into the warm waters of global warming and some silliness about "thousands from all over the globe" that were killed on 9/11 and then delivers this whopper:
OK, roll the tape.
"Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof."Stop.
Barry, you rolled right past that little dust up called World War II which is the event that got us to Berlin in the first place. Berlin was the capital of Germany. We let the Russians "liberate" it in 1945 then we divvied it up into quarters and all that fun stuff. Problem was, the Sovs didn't like "talking" with us, so they up and built a wall and put a whole lot of hardware on the border and around the city leaving us with no options. Thank God, people like you had not been in charge or we would not have had the military to do the job.
OK, let's continue...
"People of the world – look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."Whoa...
So the world stood as one. Well, not quite, Barry. It took a very courageous American named Ronald Reagan (this link takes you to the text of a real speech given in Berlin), and equally courageous woman named Maggie Thatcher, and a Pope named John Paul II that refused to let western civilization drift under the yoke of the evil of communism. The rest of the world, including most of the citizens of Germany, didn't give a rat's ass! Reagan knew the Soviet economy was teetering and that we could push them over the edge because (listen closely BO!) planned economies run by the state don't work! Maggie kept a toe-hold for sanity in Europe and Pope John Paul brought the real hope of faith back to the darkness of communist controlled central Europe. OK, now that we've cleared that up, let's move on.
Obamuhhh wanders into the warm waters of global warming and some silliness about "thousands from all over the globe" that were killed on 9/11 and then delivers this whopper:
"In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common."Well, like the Hertz commercial says, "not exactly." The Germans have elected their most conservative Chancellor in half a century in Angela Merkel and the French have dropped the American hating Chirac and the dashing America bashing Villipen for Nicolas Sarkozy who campaigned for the job as an unashamed lover of the United States. A huge reason there is derision in Europe for the United States, above and beyond the usual amount of looking down their long Gallic noses at us, is because of people like YOU, Barry. Because you, and members of your party and mindset have repeatedly gone over there and bashed this country to the accepting cheers of the gathered throngs. Let's see if you can continue the pattern...
"Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time.
I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."
As Reagan would say, "there you go again." We're bad and morally inferior because we give a few bad-guys that want to kill millions a feeling of discomfort like drowning in the hopes that maybe, just maybe they will tell us something that might save the lives of millions. We haven't kept the "promise of liberty and equality for all our people...we've made mistakes...we haven't lived up to our intentions." And the throngs cheered "Hosannas!!!" to the rooftops at this wonderful admission. The same crowd that would be speaking Russian if American troops hadn't dug their ditches and held the line. It must be great for them to hear such bad mouthing of America coming from such an important figure!
One other small note - this guy would get nailed for plaigarism if he were in a college course. The "this is our moment" rift? Straight from Bono of U2 at a Live 8 event to stop world poverty.
The speech winds down from there with the usual "improbable hope" bit and concludes with "let us remake the world once again." I am breathless...not from the quality of the speech and the incredible depth he demonstrated in his knowledge...nope, I am breathless because this speech is the intellectual equivalent of having a pillow held forcefully over your face. All talk, no walk. But then, remember, it wasn't about the speech, it was about the image.
One final note from Barry's big adventure. There is a growing awareness of his arrogance and inability to "keep the common touch." This is demonstrated by his actions with the troops. In Germany, while he had time to work out at the Ritz Carlton and entertain 200,000 America haters in downtown Berlin, he couldn't make the time to visit our wounded warriors at the Military hospital...why? Well, he couldn't bring his press pals along for a photo op, so it wasn't worth the time.
Rumble on!
Red state Update: War Funding Bill
Jackie and Dunlap on the passing of the War Funding Bill, Obama and McCain's dust-up, and Dungeons and Dragons.
http://www.travisandjonathan.com
war funding bill, mccain, senate, obama, bush, red state update, iraq
hurricane katrina, immigrants, flak jacket, bong
Red State Update: A Message From Dunlap (Jackie '08)
Dunlap saw Hillary's "A Message From President Clinton", and figured he needed to get his own message out about Jackie '08.
http://www.redstateupdate.com
jackie '08, hillary clinton, bill clinton, obama, red state update
Red State Update: The Candidates' Wives (and Husband)
Jackie Broyles and Dunlap discuss Vilsack's drop-out, the rising price of bumper stickers, and the pros and cons of the candidates' spouses. Plus stick around for a new Jackie '08 commercial.
QuickTime iTunes
vilsack, barack , obama, michelle obama, hillary clinton, bill clinton, john edwards, elizabeth edwards, mitt romney , giuliani, mormon
Red State Update: Mormon President? Obama Not Black?
Jackie and Dunlap on Barack Obama's official announcement, Mitt Romney's official announcement, and Napoleon Dynamite.
Plus a new announcement from the Jackie Broyles '08 Exploratory Committee.
barrack, obama, mitt, romney, mormon, richardson, president, 2008, hillary , clinton, red state update
Red State Update: Who's Running For President Now?
Jackie and Dunlap have a conversation with Hillary, discuss Obama's middle name, and handicap Brownback and Kucinich. Learn what qualifies Joe Biden as an expert in articulateness. And stick around 'til the end for a special announcement from the Jackie Broyles '08 Exploratory Committee!
iPod QuickTime
obama, clinton, biden, kucinich, brownback, 2008, red state update, hillary, barack, hussein, penguin, enzyte, elections, articulate
iPod QuickTime
obama, clinton, biden, kucinich, brownback, 2008, red state update, hillary, barack, hussein, penguin, enzyte, elections, articulate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)