Witch’s Will For A Mourning In September
I will remain in “mourning” so long as Obama’s unworthy ass sits in the Oval Office.
Quote of the day:
President Obama made the case for a brief bombing campaign with limited targeting of chemical storage facilities in Syria. He made a campaign promise to have the most transparent administration ever. That starts with revealing our battle plans ahead of time.
My Top 3:
Biggest Loser of 2013: the Political Class
by Scott Rasmussen
2013 has been a tough year for the political class.
The most recent evidence comes from Colorado.
There were consequences. Just not the one’s the political class expected.
After Colorado passed its own version of gun control legislation, two state senators were targeted by a grassroots effort for removal through a recall vote. It was the first time in the state’s history that the recall process had even been attempted. Outside money poured in, and gun control advocates outspent the NRA and its allies by a 6-to-1 margin. Despite the tremendous financial advantage they enjoyed, both state senators were removed from office because of their support for gun control legislation.
This wasn’t the first time the political class totally misread the public mood this year.
An early sign of trouble for the elites came with public reaction to the so-called sequester. More precisely, the D.C. panic was caused by the lack of public reaction.
The Myth of Live-and-Let-Live Liberalism
by Jonah Goldberg
In Washington, D.C., the city’s department of health wants to subject people seeking a tattoo or body piercing to a mandatory 24-hour waiting period before they can go through with it. That’s just one of the regulations in a 66-page proposal of new rules for the tattoo and piercing industry.
Reasonable people may differ on the wisdom of these proposals, but as someone whose interest in such establishments begins and ends with keeping my daughter away from them, I can’t get too worked up either way, save to say D.C. has bigger problems to worry about.
As a conservative resident of Washington, D.C., where registered Republicans are outnumbered by about 9 to 1 and where truly conservative Republicans are outnumbered on a scale comparable to the predicament faced by Frodo and Sam when they sneaked into orc-infested Mordor, I find such statements hilarious.
There is a notion out there that being “socially liberal” means you’re a libertarian at heart, a live-and-let-live sort of person who says “whatever floats your boat” a lot.
Alleged proof for this amusing myth (or pernicious lie; take your pick) comes in the form of liberal support for gay marriage and abortion rights, and opposition to a few things that smack of what some people call “traditional values.”
The evidence disproving this adorable story of live-and-let-live liberalism comes in the form of pretty much everything else liberals say, do, and believe.
Social liberalism is the foremost, predominant, and in many instances sole impulse for zealous regulation in this country, particularly in big cities. I love it when liberals complain about a ridiculous bit of PC nanny-statism coming out of New York, L.A., Chicago, D.C., Seattle, etc. — “What will they do next?”
Uh, sorry to tell you, but you are “they.” Outside of a Law and Order script — or an equally implausible MSNBC diatribe about who ruined Detroit — conservatives have as much influence on big-city liberalism as the Knights of Malta do.
“Fox News Sunday” Panel: Who Are The Winners And Losers Of The Syria Deal?
Has Jane Harman always been such an ass?
The Media Protect Obama Where It Counts
President Obama and his media enablers are trying to spin the Syria fiasco or, failing that, distract attention from it. Via Mark Steyn, Ace of Spades makes a nice catch. Time magazine publishes four editions: Europe/Middle East/Africa, Asia, South Pacific and United States. This week’s foreign editions all acknowledged the big news story of the week, and if their covers are a guide, didn’t try to paper over the disaster. This is the Europe/Middle East/Africa cover:
Note that the cover text doesn’t pull any punches:
America’s weak and waffling, Russia’s rich and resurgent–and its leader doesn’t care what anybody thinks of him.
Jen Psaki Refuses To Explain Why State Dept Is Preventing Congress From Interviewing Benghazi Survivors
Don’t that just say it all?
There once was a Congressman named Weiner,
Who had a perverted demeanor.
Forced from the Hill for acting like Bill,
Now Congress is one Weiner leaner.
Moral: “If you tweet your meat, you lose your seat.”
Poll: 12% Say Obamacare Will Have Positive Impact on their Family
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reveals Americans are unconvinced that Obamacare will improve the country’s healthcare system. Only 12% say the law will have a positive effect on their family and even the uninsured are skeptical Obamacare will do them any good.
Confusion surrounds the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act enacted in 2010, especially among the uninsured. Among this group, three-quarters of respondents say they do not understand or understood very little of the new law. Enthusiasm for program registers at a dismal level, as less than one-third say (31%) say the law is a good idea. Merely one-third of those who are uninsured say they are “fairly” or “very” likely to use the new healthcare exchanges.
Even worse, only 23% of all respondents say the law will benefit the healthcare system and paltry 12% believe the law will have a positive impact on their family.
Worth a Read:
Summers withdraws name from Fed consideration
I doubt I would find anyone Obama chose satisfactory. His choices would all be by ideology spenders. Yellen is reportedly a really big spender and would be Bernanke on steroids. And the cry to appoint her because she’s female is once again the radical left caring more about a candidates private parts then their competence. Supposedly she’s qualified.That should garner stupid female votes by those who vote with their vagina’s instead of their brains.
Obama’s Syria Meanderings Border on Incompetence
Hunt tries so hard to be honest that his constant attempts to blame Obama and pat him on the back are almost comical. He spends as much time praising Obama and “being fair to him” as he does exposing the rank amaturerism and incompetence that has been evident to anyone with eyes to see. He tried. And you can tell that it was a painful expericence for him. Boo-hoo!
Syria in the Age of Myth
by Victor Davis Hanson
A Close Study of Putin’s Op-Ed
Stephanopoulos Rationalizes Obama’s Economic Failures: ‘It’s Bigger than Washington’
Imagine a major news network anchor, in 1985, telling President Reagan that five years into his presidency rising income inequality wasn’t his fault. Ludicrous, given how the media used the term Reaganomics to denigrate his policies, policies far more successful than President Obama’s in turning around an inherited poor economy.
Yet in a sit-down with Barack Obama for ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos compliantly excused Obama’s failure: “Do you look at that four and a half years in and say, maybe a President can’t stop this accelerating inequality?”
Obama blamed companies which “have eliminated entire occupations because they’re now robotized. We don’t have travel agents, we don’t have bank tellers.”
Stephanopoulos jumped in: “It’s bigger than Washington.”
Obama affirmed: “Right.”
There aren’t bank tellers any more?
Why is Obama allowed to make such ridiculous statements without anyone in the MSM having the kind of hissy fit they had when Bush said things that were far less stupid?
Oh wait – media said Bush was stupid and Obama is brilliant and so if they admit that maybe Bush wasn’t as stupid as they said he was and that Obama is a long way from brilliant – that would be admitting that they, the media, didn’t know WTF they were talking about.
Given the low approval rating of the media – it seems they are the only ones who still think they have any credibility at all. And talking heads like Stephanopoulos have less than most.
Last But Not Least:
Diplomacy of Dunces
by Jed Babbin
Kerry-Obama have mastered the art of carrying a big mouth and getting hit with a hard stick.
The U.S.-Russian agreement, which is supposed to result in the seizure and disposition of Syria’s chemical weapons, is the crowning achievement of President Obama’s and Secretary of State Kerry’s diplomacy. Their achievements are threefold.
First, they have given New York Times op-ed contributor Vladimir Putin everything he wanted and obtained precisely nothing in return. Second, they have smoke screened public attention from the fact that the whole crisis on Syrian chemical weapons was manufactured from Obama’s cavalier comment that created the so-called “red line.” They’re now praying that people forget that the new agreement removes the threat of American use of military force against Assad and replaces it with the prospect of more UN resolutions placing sanctions on Syria. Third, they have left America’s diplomacy in complete shambles to a degree unseen since the Iranians held American embassy personnel hostage in 1979-80.
If American diplomatic incompetence were a bespoke suit, Russian President Putin would be modeling it for the media in the same manner he’s displaying the new agreement on Syria announced on Saturday. It was tailored for him by Obama and Kerry.