The Horror…The Horror

September 16, 2010

Coming to a theater near you, from the country that brought you World War II.

Make it stop…make it stopMAKE IT STOP!

H/T: Jonah Goldberg in The Corner, though I can’t tell if his “Oh, Dear Lord” header is a sigh of disbelief, or the beginning of a prayer to The One.


They Talk About Him Like A Dog

September 16, 2010

I’m confused. I thought Barack Obama said that it was a bad thing to talk about someone like he was a dog. But there it is, in The Hill: Reid: Coons, ‘my pet,’ will win.

A coonhound, perhaps?


Touched By An Angle

August 27, 2010

If you listen closely, you can actually hear the conversation that went on in the White House.

“Jobs saved or created? What on earth does that mean?”

“Well, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s simply a meaningless phrase that will allow us to claim that the stimulus is working when anyone with a pair of eyes can see it isn’t true.”

“But it’s not working. We thought those gullible fools who swallowed all that ‘hope and change’ snake oil would believe it. Let’s face it, if they believed what the President said during the campaign, we figured they’ll believe anything. But they’re not believing this. Damn you, Glenn Beck! A pox on Fox!”

“We need a new angle. Some new phrase that will touch the lives of the rubes in the same way that ‘hope and change’ did. Something that will allow us to make even more grandiose claims about our stunningly successful stimulus.”

“Touch their lives? Joe Biden, you’re a genius!”

And so now there is a new metric to determine the success of the stimulus. “Lives Touched.”

No. Really.

From Mental Recession:

A spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explains:

“Lives Touched” is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act.

The reporting instructions indicate what constitutes a life that has been touched by the stimulus:

Reporting Data
1. Report the “Lives touched” headcount for all ARRA-funded contracts or releases
1. Total number of workers who have directly charged 1 or more hours of work time to a CHPRC contract.
2. A worker who charges time to more than one contract or contract release is counted as one life touched.
3. The “lives touched” headcount will remain the same or increase over time as new workers become involved with ARRA contracts. The total headcount will never decrease.
4. Administrative/Overhead personnel included in indirect rate pools should not be counted unless they are working full time on the ARRA funded contract.
5. Separate the headcount into labor categories on the reporting spreadsheet—but DO NOT separate the headcount by contract release.

Translating the bureaucratese into English: any person who worked for one hour or more on a project that received any stimulus money is counted as a “life touched.” Even if the person in question worked only one hour, the headcount is added to the list and never removed even though the person is no longer working.

The result of this is that instead of using made up numbers and claiming them as job created or saved, they can now make up even bigger numbers and claim that these lives were “touched” by the stimulus.

At the most comical element of this farce, this is a warp speed spin. At it’s core, this is all too emblematic of the contempt in which this administration and Washington D.C. in general holds the American people. It all boils down to this: If they’re not buying the lie, change the wording. It’s a new angle on the same old withering disdain that these people have for you and me. They believe that we are so stupid that if we don’t believe one lie, we might believe a bigger lie.

Well, we’re not going to fall for this one, either.


Obama Misses The Meaning Of The Message

August 16, 2010

Showing the political instincts of a retarded turtle, Barack Obama has once again made an unforced error. He does this sort of thing a lot, whether it’s weighing in on the arrest of a Harvard professor or, as Doug Powers points out, claiming that he and his daughter went for a swim in the Gulf of Mexico when they didn’t. Now, after weeks of claiming that the Ground Zero Mosque was “a local issue,” the siren song of the Philosopher King has proved overwhelming.

At a dinner celebrating the end of Ramadan, Obama came out strongly in favor of building the mosque.

“I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

That seems pretty unequivocal to me. However it seems that after the dinner one of Obama’s handlers whispered the news that building this mosque is wildly unpopular, even in the heart of the city that is only a shade less blue than San Francisco. So then he backtracked, claiming that he had spoken only of the right to build the mosque, and made no comment on the wisdom of doing it.

Got it.

But then the White House issued another statement clarifying their clarification that the first clarification was not a clarification and that the original statement was the statement that the President is sticking with.

Wow. If they clarify this any more their heads are likely to pop off.

Obama’s initial refusal to comment on this issue was the correct one. Here I disagree with some of my conservative brethren. The building of the mosque at Ground Zero is a New York issue and while the President (or anyone) is entitled to have an opinion about it, this does remain a local issue. I understand and agree with the idea that Ground Zero was an attack on all of America, not just New York, but the building of the mosque approximately two blocks away is an issue best decided by the New Yorkers who will have to live with it.

However, the President did weigh in on the subject in a prepared set of remarks. It is now incumbent upon him to finish the thought. Saying that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has the right to build the mosque according to the local laws is only half an answer. It is like saying that the Westboro Baptist Church has the right to peaceably assemble without acknowledging what the issues really are.

Nobody that I’m aware of disputes the basic premise that a religious group can build a house of worship based on its adherence to local zoning laws, etc. The fact remains, however, that if Imam Rauf had even the slightest sense of decency he would not be building the mosque at this location. Obama should have remained silent about this issue, but since he chose to wade into these waters he is obligated to tell us his opinion of the propriety of the mosque, not simply adopt his usual above-the-fray professorial tone. The question put before the President has never been “Can this mosque be built?” It has always been “Should this mosque be built?” Refusing to answer at all is one thing, but answering one question when you’ve been asked another is simply political cowardice.

This mosque is an insult aimed directly at the heart of America, proposed by a man who blames the West for inciting Muslim terrorist attacks and who repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the simple truth that Hamas is a terrorist organization. The mosque has received an endorsement from Hamas and from the terrorist sympathizers at CAIR (Council for American-Islamic Relations). Now I know that this is not the first time Barack Obama has found common cause with terrorists, but you’d think that he might not want to be seen on the wrong side of this explosive issue.

There is more to jihad than flying airplanes into buildings and strapping dynamite to your chest. Hand in hand with those who seek to destroy us through violent means are those who seek to impose their will on us through political means. The building of this mosque at Ground Zero is nothing less than a victory dance for Mohammed Atta and his cronies. Barack Obama once called the Islamic call to prayer “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset”. Maybe so, but playing it on the streets of lower Manhattan, having it reverberate at the site of the September 11 Memorial, is a dagger aimed at our hearts. Not all terrorism results in physical injury or death. Some of it is meant simply to send a message.

So tell us, Philosopher King Obama…now that you’ve weighed in on local zoning laws, what do you have to say about the meaning of the message?


The View, From Mount Olympus

July 29, 2010

Earlier today, Barack Obama made an appearance on The View, the all-women gabfest with Barbara Walters, Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and somebody else. It’s a wildly left-wing show with Hasselbeck the sole conservative who is overmatched by Walters and overwhelmed by Behar and Goldberg (and probably the other one). Hasselbeck may be on the side of the angels in the political wars, but she’s not what anyone would call a great spokesperson for conservative philosophy…especially since she has a tendency to retreat every time Behar and Goldberg flap their lips at her in that oh-so-condescendingly scornful way. Retreat in the face of liberal shouting points is unfortunately a Republican trait, perhaps, but not a conservative one.

I haven’t seen the show. I’m sure I’ll catch clips of it on the news tonight, but I have no plans to watch the show in its entirety. I already know what’s going to go on.

Obama will emerge from the curtains and warmly greet his hosts who will get all googly-eyed and weak-kneed in his presence. Walters, Goldberg, Behar and the other one will ask a series of softball questions along the lines of “How does it feel to be doing such a great job against those evil Republicans?” These questions will be followed by applause from the audience which Obama will acknowledge with his shy smile (as opposed to his big, toothy grin) and a head nod. Perhaps he will even raise his hand as if to say, “Now, now…let’s not mock the afflicted.” His answer will begin with a light joke that will only be funny to those people who are in his magnificent Presence.

Here’s where it will get interesting for approximately ten seconds. As if to suggest the slight possibility that maybe, just maybe but probably not, the Emperor isn’t wearing anything but a smile, Elizabeth Hasselbeck will ask some sort of a dull-pointed question about jobs or the economy and Obama will pause for a second to pretend that he’s considering the gravity of her question when all he’s really doing is trying to appear like the philosopher king he wants you to think he is. If the other hosts of the show don’t jump all over Hasselbeck, then Obama will respond with 1) a trite acknowledgment that there is still a long way to go; 2) a line that begins with “when we inherited…”, and; 3) a reassurance that things are going to be just peachy real soon. Hasselbeck will immediately retreat.

When the program is over, or when the segment is complete and they bring out the next guest (maybe that guy from the San Diego Zoo who will come on with a lemur and a cheetah, or maybe Rachael Ray will come on to show you 1,001 uses for turnips), Obama will ascend once again to his throne at the top of Mount Olympus secure in the knowledge that the fawning adulation he has just received is indicative of how the people really feel about him. Such is life in the echo chamber when your megalomania is aided and abetted by the adoring TV hosts and their equally adoring audience.

Last night on Special Report with Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer said that ever since Nixon went on Laugh-In to say, “Sock it to me,” it’s been all downhill for the idea of Presidential dignity. He may be right, but I think that was more of an anomaly. To me the real downhill slide began with Bill Clinton honking into his sax while wearing sunglasses on The Arsenio Hall Show, and that slide reached NASCAR velocity when he actually answered the “Boxers or briefs” question some outrageously rude girl asked him on MTV. Since then, politicians need to run a gauntlet of Letterman, Leno, Oprah, MTV, The Daily Show, and The View in order to get elected.

I find the entire thing distasteful and a clear indicator that we’re more interested in a Celebrity-in-Chief than we are a Commander-in-Chief. Even Democrat Governor Ed Rendell compares this to appearing on Jerry Springer. The President would dignify the office by appearing on serious, substantive shows answering real, tough questions from seasoned journalists who are familiar with the talking points and insist that the President not stick to them. Let The View stick to cooking tips and movie star interviews. Anyone who goes to The View (or Oprah, Letterman, Leno, Jon Stewart, etc) for their political information needs to have their right to vote reconsidered.

The Roundup: Hot Air posted a preview last night, but I haven’t watched it.