Saturday, September 28

Feds: We have absolutely no money left. Uh...but we just found $100 mill to give to Detroit

Well, well, well...you knew it was gonna happen:  We've been predicting that the Obozo administration would use taxpayer funds to bail out corrupt or merely incompetently managed states.

Admittedly we were betting the first bailouts would go to Chicago or California, but we were wrong.

Democrat pols, whether by corruption or merely incompetence, ran Detroit into bankruptcy.  Because of the stench of corruption and the thorough dominance of the Democrat party and government unions in that city, the Obama administration vowed they wouldn't make all Americans bailout the cesspool.  And with  near-record federal deficits and way-record national debt--bumping against the joke "limit"--shoveling money at Detroit seemed likely to be quite unpopular with voters.

Of course, promises made by this president--in this case not to bail out the city--are...flexible.  And now the feds are sending a paltry $100 million of taxpayer money to Detroit. 

Recall that with the sequester the government closed national parks, and didn't even have enough to keep the White House open for tours.  But no matter.

Of course what few outside the administration realize is that this modest transfer of federal funds also sets a precedent:  They want to see if Americans--and congress--object. If not, how could anyone object if the government gives a few Billion to Chicago or California?

Keep in mind, of course, that sending federal funds is *not* being done for partisan reasons--perish the thought!  It's merely a coincidence that Detroit, Chicago and Cali are huge Democrat strongholds.

We're absolutely sure the Dems would be just as eager to send funds to, say, Texas or Arizona if either of those states had a problem.  Like being overrun with illegal aliens or somethin'.

Yeah, right.

Oh, and for the record:  Congress passed a law barring the president from giving U.S. funds to the Palestinians.  Obama issued a unilateral declaration "waiving" that law, in order to give the Palis $150 million of taxpayer bucks.  Then earlier this year he directed the State Department to give them an *additional* $250 million.  That's 400 million bucks.

Congress didn't bat an eye.

AP reports "Historic, seismic shift" in US-Iranian relations??

The Associated Press--like all of the mainstream media--strongly supports Obama and the Democratic party.  Thus the AP always spins stories so events detrimental to Obama or Democrats are portrayed as trivial, while events that are of no significance whatsoever are portrayed as great accomplishments for Obama and the Democrats.

Thus we have this AP propaganda piece:
The United States and Iran took a historic step toward ending more than three decades of estrangement on Friday when President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke by phone and agreed to work on resolving global suspicions that Tehran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

The 15-minute call capped a week of seismic shifts in the relationship that revolved around Rouhani's participation in the annual U.N. meeting of world leaders. The night before the two leaders spoke, U.S. and European diplomats hailed a "very significant shift" in Iran's attitude and tone in the first talks on the nuclear standoff since April.

Iran is also seeking quick relief from blistering economic sanctions that the U.S. and its Western allies have imposed on Tehran to punish it for refusing to scale back its nuclear activities. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, but years of stonewalling inspections and secrecy about its activities have fueled fears it is seeking to build warheads.

Rouhani and Obama spoke while the Iranian president was in his car and headed to the airport to fly back to Tehran, with Obama at his desk in the Oval Office. Rouhani's aides initially reached out to arrange the conversation, and the White House placed the call.

The last direct conversation between the leaders of the two countries was in 1979 before the Iranian Revolution toppled the pro-U.S. shah and brought Islamic militants to power. Obama said the long break "underscores the deep mistrust between our countries, but it also indicates the prospect of moving beyond that difficult history."

"While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward, and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution," Obama told reporters at the White House. 
 It's truly amazing how much propaganda is crammed into this article.  Taking it from the top:  The term "historic" is usually used as praise. In this case no one can know if the mere act of talking will have any positive outcome.  But the writer has set the tone from the first sentence.

"Seismic shifts in the relationship."  The adjective suggests phenomenal, earth-shaking.  Okay, what's the evidence?  Why, the Iranian prezzy actually attended a meeting at the U.N.!  Not only that, he actually a  phone conversation with a guy who got a Nobel peace prize.

This is less earth-shaking than it's the swooning of 8th-graders:  "OMG, he (she) smiled at me!" 

It's also significant that two days earlier British papers reported that the White House had tried to set up a short face-to-face meeting between Obama and the Iranian, but the Iranians declined.  The AP reported only that "the Iranians said it was too complex" to do.  Hmmm.... Interestingly, very near the bottom of the story the AP notes
The White House had reached out to Tehran earlier this month to offer a meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly on Monday or Tuesday, but Rouhani declined at the time. Rouhani may have asked for the phone call before he left the U.S. to avoid the impression that he snubbed Obama at the United Nations when the two failed to meet.
In any case, the Iranian couldn't even be bothered to meet Obama when both were at the U.N., yet the mere appearance of the Iranian at the U.N. and the call while he was enroute to the airport has the AP in ecstasy.

But the topper is the 'graf where the writer notes that the last direct conversation between the two nations was in 1979.  And pray tell, what was the cause of the long silence?  As the AP tells it, it was evidently the fact that the Iranians overthrew the pro-U.S. Shah.  This is the writer's entire historical summary.

Wow.  No mention whatsoever of "students" taking over our embassy and holding 52 Americans captive for well over a year--holding mock executions from time to time.  The AP apparently felt that wasn't worth mentioning--perhaps because we're still trying to decide whether to investigate the murders at our embassy annex in Benghazi?

And it's worth noting that no one under age 53 or so has any direct memory of the embassy takeover.  Ah, that's probably why the AP didn't mention it.  Wouldn't have meant anything to most of their readers.  Prolly why the AP stuck with the "Shah" reference.

Finally there's Obama's statement to the White House reporters, "I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution."  Oh, naturally any solution would have to be "comprehensive," because if one omitted that key word the fantasy would be too obvious:  Iran is a problem because they support terrorism--Hezbollah in Syria, for example--and have repeatedly agreed to stop atom-bomb development only to renege later.  That would seem to be a sign that they're not serious about stopping.

Oh wait...that was before the new Iranian prezzy actually took a call from Duh Won.  After refusing to meet Obama at the U.N.

As the AP wrote:  historic.

I'll defer to the folks at PJ Media for the wrap:
What a breakthrough! Diplomats are swooning over Iran’s “significant shift” in “attitude and tone.”  Of course the needle on substance didn’t move a centimeter, but who cares about the real world when we can have this glorious fantasy of a “moderate” Iran?

I sense a second Nobel for our peace-loving president.

Iran won’t stop developing a nuclear bomb, of course, but we will pretend they aren’t, thus achieving an historic peace. The US and our allies are now committed to reaching a deal with the Iranians — no matter how bad for us. It’s what happens when you put arrogant ideologues in charge who think they know better than anyone else.

Democrat Reid: Republicans must do what we say or govt will shut down. MSM: *Republicans* threatening shutdown.

Democrats and their supporters in the Lying Media are pushing the fable that "the nasty, evil GOP has threatened to shut down the government, so if the government *does* shut down, it's totally their fault."

This is a lie, of course, but such trivia hardly deter Dems and the media from pushing it.

The tactic works because most Americans believe what they see, hear and read in the mainstream media--the networks and three or four big newspapers.  But the facts aren't hard to find.  For example, the normally Democrat-supporting rag The Hill ran this story, titled "Reid's parting shot to Boehner: pass our bill or its a shutdown:"
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Friday that the Senate is done acting on legislation to avert a government shutdown and that House Republicans have no choice but to pass the Senate's bill if they want to keep the government open.

"I want everyone to listen and to hear: The United States Senate has acted," Reid said on the Senate floor. "This is the only legislation that can avert a government shutdown, and that time is ticking as we speak." 
Reid's made the statement just before closing down the Senate until 2 p.m. Monday.
"In the meantime … if Speaker [John] Boehner [R-Ohio] wants to avoid a government shutdown, he will pass our resolution," he said. "Otherwise, it's a government shutdown."
Tell us again, Lying Media:  Who's actually threatening to shut it down?  Reid says "the senate is done acting and Republicans have no choice but to pass the senate's bill if they want to keep the government open."  Sounds like a threat to me.  "You gotta do what I say or I'll take my toys and go home!"

And of course Republican members--knowing they'll be blamed by the media if there's a shutdown--will roll over for the lawless tyrants Reid, Obozo and friends.

I keep thinking that eventually they'll realize they're killing the country, and they'll finally defect.  But then I realize "Hey, they're Democrats.  What was I thinking?"

UPDATE:
With just over two days remaining to avoid a government shutdown, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected House Republicans’ latest plan to fund the government, reiterating his intention not to negotiate on that bill.
Speaker of the House John Boehner announced Saturday morning that the House would attach a one-year delay of Obamacare and a repeal of the medical device tax to the funding bill. The House is expected to vote on that bill some time on Saturday and send it back to the Senate. The new plan comes after the Senate rejected the House’s initial offering, which funded the government in a bill that defunded Obamacare.

Reid has said multiple times that his Democratic Senate will not accept any government funding bill that includes measures affecting the healthcare law. On Saturday, he dug in his heels.

“Today’s vote by House Republicans is pointless,” Reid said in a statement. “As I have said repeatedly, the Senate will reject any Republican attempt to force changes to the Affordable Care Act through a mandatory government funding bill or the debt ceiling. Furthermore, President Obama has stated that he would veto such measures if they ever reached his desk.”
The Repubs keep passing bills to keep the government running.  Reid rejects 'em, says his boss has promised to veto 'em.  But the media keep claiming the the Republicans are threatening...?

Wednesday, September 25

Who is really threatening to "shut down the government"?


A huge Democrat talking point right now is that Republicans are threatening to shut down the federal government if they don't get their way about de-funding Obamacare.

Typical is this statement by Democrat Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark who is running for the U.S. senate:  
At the urging of extremists on the right flank, House Republicans have voted 42 times to repeal President Obama’s health care law… Now, extremist House Republicans are threatening to shut down the government if they don’t get their way.
Extremist House Republicans seem dug in on their misguided attempt to bring the gears of government to a halt....
Perfect! Not only does it scare little old ladies, it shows the Rethuglicans as mean and selfish.  What a hit! 

But wait...didn't the House just pass a "continuing resolution" to keep the government running?

Why yes, yes they did.

Which clause in that bill threatened to "shut down the government"?

Uh...there isn't one.

But wait...Booker just said--as ALL the Dems and the media are now saying--that the Republicans are threatening to shut down the gummint!  Dems wouldn't lie about something so frightening, would they?  So where's the threat to "shut down the government" that Booker and every other Dem figure is scare-talking about?

There's a threat all right.  But it comes from Barack H. Obama.  Who has threatened to veto any spending bill that de-funds Obamacare.

But wait...wouldn't vetoing a bill that provides funding for the continuied operation of the federal gummint shut the government down?

Why yes, yes it would.

But...but...but then how can the Democrats say...with the full, uncritical support of the Lying Media...that  *Republicans* have threatened to shut the thing down?

Silly voter!  You aren't sophisticated or nuanced enough to understand such things.  But because we Dems believe in helping the less-fortunate, we'll try one more time:  "It's the Repubs' fault because our wonderful prezzy *warned 'em* that he'd veto any spending bill that didn't include funding for Obamacare.  But the spending bill passed by the House did that anyway.  So it's *their fault* that he'll be forced to veto the bill.

"Don't think of it as shutting down the government, but just doing what he warned 'em he'd do if they crossed his 'red line.'  Got it?"

Let me see:  House Republicans pass a bill to keep government operating. Obama promises to veto it--which would shut it down.  So Dems and the media blame the Republicans for threatening to shut down the government?

Insanity.  

Sunday, September 22

Leftist talking points

So-called "progressives"--the left edge of the Democrat party--win support by embracing and advocating a number of things that appeal to the poor, naive and dumb.  They rarely put these principles on paper but use them in speeches, because when spoken with conviction they are seductive and resonate with poor, ignorant or naive listeners.

But if the principles are committed to paper, their logical flaws are relatively easy to spot. Which is why progs usually avoid doing that.  But thanks to video and the internet, folks have a chance to analyze their recorded words and separate the meaning of those words from the emotions they generate when spoken in ringing tones.

Some of these principles are
  • All your problems are caused by The Rich, a.k.a. the "one-percenters;"  who are all whites;
  • If we would just tax the rich at, say, 90 percent of their income, the U.S. would be a better place; the rich would continue to work hard, start businesses and create jobs, because...Obama;
  • Almost all rich folks are White, so there must be a conspiracy of whites to oppress all other races;
  • Education and hard work have no bearing on success; in fact, education is a tool used by whites to oppress minorities;
  • The government can spend as much as it wants, because it owns the printing presses.  (Duh!)  If it needs more money it can simply print as much as it wants.  Talk of a "debt ceiling" or limit is just BS by Whitey to keep you from getting what you're *entitled to* to live;
  • Art is reeeally important--so important that a good government will pass laws requiring all government construction projects to include a fixed percentage of their construction cost exclusively for art.  Artists will be selected from an approved list.  Don't worry about who selects the artists on the list, because trust us.
  • Having a strong military causes us to get involved in wars.  Thus if we reduce military funding, soon wars will be a thing of the past; no one will attack us because everyone will then like us;
  • There's nothing wrong with men fathering dozens of children by different women, because the government will take care of them.  In fact that's the government's *job.*  Why would kids need two parents in a home if government is doing what fathers used to have to do?
  • As a resident of the U.S. you have a right to live off government programs, and doing so will not reduce your independence or initiative, or impair your character in any way.  When politicians try to cut these programs they're taking away your rights.  Remember, this is your right, and worth fighting for;
  • Similarly, you have an absolute right to vote, and people who want you to show photo ID to vote are trying to take that right away from you.  It's called "voter suppression" and is simply one more way whites oppress minorities;
  • There's no need to work and save for retirement, because the government will ensure that you have food and a place to live.  Only fools save for the future;
I've probably missed a few points--proggies are so prolific that it's hard to capture all their bullshit points in one sitting.  What's amazing is how *great* these points sound when a speaker uses them to fire up a crowd of low-information types.

Oh, if you want to see some of this in action, check out former ACORN president Bertha Lewis.

Saturday, September 21

Debt limit approaches; stories already appearing about GOP wanting to shut down the government

So, House Republicans delivered on what they were elected to do:  they passed a "continuing resolution" to fund all operations of the federal government except one, at current levels, thus avoiding a shutdown.  The bill provides that no federal funds shall be used for Obamacare.

One would think this strategy would avoid any possibility of the Dems and their media allies claiming that the GOP was threatening a government shutdown.  There's no way House Republicans could rationally be accused of either shutting down the government or threatening to do so, because they passed the C.R. in plenty of time for the senate to act.

Today is Saturday, Sept. 21st, and I'd like to make a prediction:  The Democrats and their media allies will still accuse Republicans of threatening to shut down the government.

Yeah, I don't see how that accusation would fly either, but they'll do it anyway.  And the media will run the usual dozens of hand-wringing, heart-wrenching stories about poor little old ladies who are scared to death they won't get their Social Security checks.

The media will get away with the "GOP shutdown" story because senate majority leader Harry Reid has said he won't permit a vote on the continuing resolution as-is; i.e. without funding for Obamacare.  Instead he intends to strip out the de-funding provision before submitting the bill to a vote.

You'd think if a party leader refuses to submit a crucial continuing-resolution budget bill for a vote, he would be the guy threatening to shut down the gummint.  But of course that's not the way the media will spin it.  Rather, the media will praise Reid for standing up for the working people.

See, in the senate, Democrats have the votes to get whatever they want.  But if they vote *for* the CR as-is, it de-funds Obamacare.  So they'll first strip out the troublesome provision and *then* vote.

GOP senators are said to be mulling a filibuster of the crucial spending bill, but I don't think they're likely to actually do that, since the Dems and their media allies are ready to pounce with the "You're shutting down our precious government!" story.  So I suspect we'll see things work just the way the bastard Reid has said.

Representative government is a wonderful thing.  Government "of the people, by the people and for the people."  Wish we had one.

Obozo: "Raising the debt ceiling does NOT increase our debt"

As some of you may have heard, the country is fast approaching the legally authorized government borrowing limit. 

In fact, there are a number of indicators that the government has exceeded that limit, but as some very smart woman recently said, "At this point what difference can it possibly make?"

Of course Obama--and all Democrat congresscritters (and a lot of Repubs)--wants to not have any restrictions on spending, since the ability to keep spending your tax dollars equals power--a lot of it.  So the Obama administration is making a major push to ensure congress doesn't limit spending in any way.  And he's declared to Republican leaders that he will NOT negotiate in any way to get an increase in the debt limit.

For example, here's how Obama characterized the situation in a speech at the Business Roundtable headquarters in Washington, D.C.:
Now, this debt ceiling -- I just want to remind people in case you haven't been keeping up -- raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt.  It does not somehow promote profligacy.  All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you've already racked up, Congress.  It's a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.
Say what?  Raising the debt limit does NOT increase our debt??  Uh...seems a bit odd.

But such is the new math in the era of Obama.


Democrat congress members walk out of Benghazi hearing before witnesses can testify

Anyone remember something odd that happened in a place called Benghazi?

Hard to recall cuz it happened SOoo long ago--a whole year--but I vaguely remember something about a mob of Muslims attacking a U.S. outpost and killing four Americans.  I think one of the men killed was an ambassador or something.

Hillary said it was because of a video on the internet that insulted Islam, and she promised to investigate to find out why the guys were killed.  And Lord Obama promised to investigate.  But oddly, his administration refused to allow survivors of the attack to testify before the House.

So last Thursday the House Government Oversight Committee decided to get the ball rolling, by inviting the parents of two of the men killed to appear before the committee and testify.

As the hearing began, all but two of the Democrat congresspeople on the committee got up and walked out.

You may well wonder what purpose such an act served.  It didn't prevent the parents from testifying, but it did allow the Democrat members to avoid having to cast a possible vote on a motion to do something more significant, like a resolution demanding that the Obama administration produce certain other witnesses.

I guess walking out to avoid a damaging vote has become an acceptable tactic for Democrats.

Can you imagine how the network newscasts would have howled if this had been done by Republicans?  It would have been front-page news--complete with large color photos of fleeing members.

But as of yesterday this seemingly significant story hadn't been mentioned by a single mainstream media outlet.

It can't be because it wasn't significant.  I guess they just didn't want you to know.

Gee, wonder why?

Wednesday, September 18

Obama's Syrian adventure, summarized in a cartoon

A cartoon by Ramirez sums up Obama's threat to bomb Syria--with or without congressional approval.  No, wait, I'll ask congress to approve it.  Wait, cancel that vote, even though I could have won it, and even though I *still* don't need their approval.

Oh, and that Russian offer?  That was totally my plan all along.  Really.  Me and Vlad had been collaborating on that for weeks.  Really.  And it's gonna take all chemical weapons away from Assad.  Really.  'Cuz if the Russians don't honor the agreement we just made, all options are still on the table.  Including a military strike. 

And that's a serious threat, not just hot air.  'Cuz, you know, I coulda gotten congressional approval before.

Even though I didn't need it.


Tuesday, September 17

Obama doesn't trust you with guns--but is *giving* weapons to Islamic fanatics in Syria??

Most Americans are too busy trying to make a living, trying to keep their family fed and housed, to pay attention to world events.  If you're in that category, here's what you may have missed:

Obama and the Democrats constantly wail that guns are bad--they kill people.  They believe Americans shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

On the other hand, if you belong to a radical Islamic terrorist group--the folks who behead bound prisoners in front of cheering crowds of their co-religionists--Obama and the Democrats believe not only that they should have military-grade weapons, but that the U.S. should actually give them those weapons.

You may be thinking, "That's just typical right-wing wacko bullshit--our government would never supply arms to terrorists! 

But the Obama administration--with the full support of most Dem congressthieves--is doing exactly that.

So to review:  Dems claim guns are bad, and that you can't be trusted to have them.  But they'll approve our government *giving* all manner of weapons--including heat-seeking shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles--to radical Islamic jihadists in Syria.

These are the same radicals who are killing Christians by the thousands.  But of course Obama couldn't care less about that particular group.

Almost defies belief, eh?


Monday, September 16

Watching the media spin Obama's "solution" to Syria

After long minutes of reflection the Mainstream Media have delivered their opinion on Obama's "handling" of the use of nerve gas to kill 1400 Syrians.  And that reaction is uniformly praising the Lightworker for his masterful strategy.

Typical is Neil Irwin of the Washington Post who wrote: “Was Obama’s Syria strategy brilliant or lucky?” before answering his own question with "This is a win for President Obama."

Such a claim would be laughable if not for the fact that in another month it will have become the official Narrative of the event, and thus beyond questioning.  So before everyone buys the Democrat Narrative and forgets what actually happened I'd like to review the events:

A year ago Obama answered a question about Syria by saying that "if we saw bunches of [chemical] weapons being moved around, or used, that would represent a red line for us." 

On August 21st some group in Syria fired rockets containing nerve gas at several neighborhoods east and south of Damascus, killing about 1400 people.  Intel sources claimed to have intercepted radio communications suggesting the source was the Syrian military--though other sources claimed the forces fighting against the Assad regime were responsible, in an effort to win U.S. support against Assad.

In any case Obama announced that using nerve gas on civilians was unacceptable and that he was prepared to order a military strike on Syria (presumably on Assad regime forces) to "deter [Assad] from using such weapons, or degrade his capability to use these weapons."  Moreover, Obama announced that he didn't need congressional authorization to order a military strike.

Obama then asked leaders of other nations to support his proposed strike.  British PM David Cameron put the motion to Parliament, which voted against it.  The only militarily significant country supporting a U.S. strike was France.

At about the same time, Obama announced that even though he did NOT need the approval of congress, he would nevertheless put the question to a congressional vote.  One can only imagine how Dems in congress reacted to this announcement, since it put them in the position of either having to go on the record as voting for a U.S. military strike, or else be portrayed as indifferent to the killing of 400 Syrian kids by nerve gas.  No good way out of that bind.

Battle lines were drawn:  With the senate being majority-Democrat--and with all Dem senators heretofore supporting Obama on every issue--it seemed certain that the senate would vote to support a strike.  But the Republican-majority house was a different story.  If the house voted no, would that still constitute "congressional approval" of a strike?  Thus the administration pushed their friends in the media and Democrat leaders to support the president's proposal.

Watching people as ultra-liberal and anti-war as Democrat house minority leader Nancy Pelosi argue in favor of a military strike was either jaw-dropping or delicious hypocrisy, depending on your party.
President Obama's hopes of winning congressional approval for a U.S. military strike on Syria could come down to the persuasion skills of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal who was a leading critic of the war in Iraq.

With a nod to the historical irony, she is arguing to her Democratic colleagues that Syria is different from the earlier conflict. She spoke passionately in an interview about the "human rights catastrophe" in Syria, saying a "limited, targeted" attack "that will be over fast" could prevent the future use of weapons of mass destruction. And she called on Obama to make a more forceful argument for military action.

Pelosi is expected to intensify her efforts next week when Congress returns from its summer recess, pressing her 199 fellow Democrats in sessions in her Capitol office and on the House floor and meetings of the full caucus. Congressional aides expect the Senate to vote next week, with the House to follow perhaps the week after.
Pelosi wrote five letters to her Democrat colleagues urging them--albeit in very carefully-worded language-- to support Obama's announced intent of ordering a military strike.  One can only wonder how much effort it took by Obama aides to persuade the ultra-liberal Pelosi to reverse her previous position so radically.

Obama tried to guilt all members of congress into voting for a strike, while simultaneously trying to disown his comment of a year earlier:  In a speech in Sweden he claimed "I didn't set a red line.  The U.S. congress set a red line.  The world set a red line."  This understandably triggered howls of derision on the right, though most of the public never got to see his original statement as the MSM elected not to run it.

But amazingly, house Republican leaders announced their support for a strike.  Here's the Obama-loving NY Times:
President Obama won the support...of Republican and Democratic leaders in the House for an attack on Syria...
Uncertainties abound, particularly in the House, where the imprimatur of the Republican leadership does not guarantee approval by rebellious rank and file...

Support from top Republicans--who rarely agree with Mr. Obama on anything--suggest the White House may be on firmer footing than seemed the case on Saturday, when the president abruptly halted his plans for action in the face of growing protests from Congress. Mr. Obama is now headed to Sweden and Russia, where he will try to shore up an international coalition to punish Syria for a chemical weapons attack

But a funny thing happened on the way to Damascus:  Despite a full-court press from the administration, not only did Obama not pick up much support in the house, even senate Democrats also started to defect.  It soon became apparent that Obama couldn't even win a majority in the Democrat-controlled senate.  Quietly, the much-ballyhooed vote was cancelled--with no fanfare and almost no comment in the media.

Now Obama found himself in a bind:  Having declared that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would be a "red line," he was now forced to either order a strike without congressional approval--something he had claimed just two days earlier that he had the power to do--or forego military action and tolerate something he'd earlier said was unacceptable.

Enter the next member of the clown posse:  Obama's secretary of state, John Kerry.  In an offhand response to a reporter's question about how a strike could be averted, Kerry said "Assad could turn over all his chemical weapons within a week.  But that will never happen--could never happen."

Spokespeople in the Obama administration immediately "walked it back" (the currently approved wording for "disregard that crock").  But then an unexpected player popped up to give Obama an out:  The premier of Russia offered to supervise the declaration of all chemical weapons in Syria, and their placement under international control.

Having a keen instinct for seizing his own political advantage, Barry did a quick pivot:  Suddenly not only was Kerry's offer not a mis-statement, it was actually Obama's strategy all along.  In this new narrative Barry claims Assad only agreed to the Russian offer because of the threat of a U.S. military strike.

While this may sound plausible to the low-information voter, the notion that Obama's plan all along was for Putin to propose a last-minute way out strikes most rational adults as preposterous.  There are far too many risks and disadvantages to doing it that way.  But with the help of a adoring media this is the narrative the administration has decided to run with.

If you think this is hyperbole, here's the left-wing Politico this morning:
Vice-President Biden trumpeted the tentative agreement between Russia and the United States to press for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons as a signal success of the Obama administration’s foreign policy Sunday, telling a crowd of Democrats here that it was a credit to President Barack Obama’s “absolutely clear” vision for foreign policy.

At [a Democratic  fundraiser] Biden told a hushed audience that it was thanks to the White House that the world was taking action against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people.”
[Obama] wasn’t going to allow it to happen on his watch,” Biden said. “He is, in fact, the reason why the world community is facing up, finally, finally” to the destruction in Syria.
No one is surprised when a politician claims credit for something he didn't do (think Al Gore claiming to have invented the internet), but at some point you'd think a scintilla of common sense would cause you to avoid claiming credit for what was actually a total disaster, but for the intervention of an outside party.

But when you think about it, this sort of response is actually typical of Obama's whole career:  Bullshit your way through--as when he and Bill Ayers talked their way into control of $120 million in the nearly-forgotten "Annenberg challenge" to improve education in Chicago.  But that's another story.

Monday, September 9

DNC head: "We have support of dozens of countries" for Syrian strike. Won't name even one

Democratic pols seem to lie so easily.  In the latest example, DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz claimed to have received briefings--presumably from the Obama administration--that the U.S. had the support of "dozens" of other nations in proposing to strike Syria.  But when asked which countries, here's what she said:

“I mean we have, from the briefings that I’ve received, there are dozens of countries who are going to stand with the United States, who will engage with us on military action and also that back us up,” Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer...

It's okay, guys:  We know you have zero support for this--well, except from al-Qaeda, whose members are positively giddy that the U.S. Air Force may be ordered to help them overthrow Assad.

But wait a sec:  If Iran and Russia are supporting Assad, why not let those two countries continue to support him in fighting as-Qaeda for as long as possible?  Isn't that win-win for the U.S.?

Sunday, September 8

Here's how Obama's handpicked UN rep analyzed the Syria gas problem

Samantha Power is Obama's hand-picked ambassador to the United Nations.  Here's how she made the case for a U.S. strike on Syria, in a speech to the left-wing "Center for American Progress:"
We worked with the UN to create a group of inspectors and then worked for more than six months to get them access to [Syria], on the logic that perhaps the presence of an investigative team in the country might deter future attacks.  Or if not, at a minimum we thought perhaps a shared evidentiary base could convince Russia or Iran — itself a victim of Saddam Hussein's monstrous chemical weapons attacks in 1987-1988 — to cast loose a regime that was gassing its people.
It takes a minute for the astonishing naivete--some would say stupidity--of the above statement to sink in.  What in the world would lead a rational adult to believe the mere presence of a U.N. inspection team somewhere in Syria would deter either side from using whatever weapons they felt would give them an advantage, considering that 100,000 Syrians have died in the current civil war.

But even that astonishing piece of unreasoning is eclipsed by the second sentence:  Did the Obama administration really believe Russia--a patron of Syria's Assad family for decades--would side with the U.S. over its long-time client?  If so, on what conceivable basis did they expect such a drastic reversal?

Well if Russia isn't likely to side with us, surely--surely--those nice mullahs who run the Islamic "republic" of Iran would....I mean, it's not like they've been calling the U.S. "the great satan" since, oh, 1979.

Honestly, it's even hard to lampoon "strategic analysis" this dumb.

Power and company are the same people who think it won't really be a problem if Iran develops its own atomic bomb.  Cuz, really, Iran's leaders are "just like us."  So they even if they get The Bomb, they wouldn't actually use it.

The scariest thing about this story is that Power, all her advisors, and Obama's advisors aren't just some random idiots at Democrat Underground.  Rather, now that congress has surrendered the last of their traditional oversight roles, Power and associates are supposedly the top foreign-policy thinkers in the entire Obama administration.

God Almighty.  How did this once-great nation come to this pass?  Oh, that's right:  35 percent idiots, 13 percent guilt-riddled liberals and five percent vote fraud.  That's all it took.

So how did the normally intensely anti-war Washington Post react to the above?
Syria is...the sort of problem that Power made her name writing and thinking about: not just a terrible humanitarian catastrophe, but one with complex international legal and diplomatic aspects...
The Post, as everyone knows, is a big proponent of the U.S. using military force to force brutal dictators who kill their own people or invade neighbors to stop.  Like Saddam Hussein, for example.  The Post was a strong supporter of taking military action against Saddam.  Uh-huh.

Whether you find her case compelling, it’s steeped in years of rigorous study on exactly the issues at hand and avoids a lot of the politically tinged confusion or moralizing in earlier cases from the administration.
Ah.  Her conclusions aren't just wild guesses but are the result of "years" of "rigorous" study.  And not just on random stuff, but on exactly the issues at hand!  Well that clinches it--if she's spent years studying exactly the issues at hand, her conclusions have to be right.

Is this a newspaper or a press release from a PR firm?  Amazing...the Post is now squarely in the camp of advocating military intervention to stop bad behavior even within a single country.  What a change!

In case the reader may still be unsure whether Power has reached the "right" conclusion, the author quickly adds that Power's analysis "avoids a lot of the politically tinged confusion or moralizing in earlier cases from the administration."

Can there be any doubt of the Post's sentiments?  Again, a breathtaking reversal of the traditional position. 


Saturday, September 7

"Red line? Nah, I never said that." MSM nods in agreement.

A few days ago, as our wunnerful Emperor was in St. Petersburg for a meeting of a bunch of heads of state, he made some remarks regarding his desire to order an attack on Syria.

In those remarks he said "I didn't set a red line--the world set a red line."

How...interesting.  Cuz, y'know, I could have sworn I saw a video clip of Obozo saying
We have been very clear to the Assad regime...that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.
Obie said that on August 20th of last year.

Now we all know it's hard to remember what you said a year ago, and if you made an off-the-cuff comment about something trivial, it's not unreasonable to forget you said it.  But in this case, after Obozo made his "red line" comment, White House officials--presumably after consulting with all Obie's handlers--affirmed it.  And in April of this year the White House legislative affairs director wrote this to congress:
We...reaffirm that the President has set a clear red line as it relates to the United States that the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups is a red line that is not acceptable to us, nor should it be to the international community. It’s precisely because we take this red line so seriously that we believe there is an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria.
Now, as every adult should know, the top priority of political appointees is, Don't say or do anything that your boss doesn't approve.  So it's a safe bet Obama or his handlers approved the "red line" references.

But much to his surprise, for the first time ever, Americans, congress and the rest of the world didn't fall all over themselves to do his bidding.  Oooh, whadda we do now, Sparky?  Unless we can convince people to attack, gotta make those repeated "red line" remarks vanish.

But under what possible theory can Obama claim that he didn't set a red line?  Simple:  Just deny you said it.  More specifically, claim that everyone in the world misunderstood him.  Cuz, you know, he's so dreamy-brilliant and everyone else is so stooopid.

No Republican could get away with that.  Hell, the media wouldn't let most Democrat presidents get away with it.  But Obozo gets away with brazen lying because the Dem-loving media will either ignore Barky's misleading statement altogether or will give it just enough--buried on page E-24--coverage to be able to claim "Of course we reported it, cuz we're totally unbiased!"

Of course it would be a far different matter if a Republican did the same thing Obozo has done.

Think I'm exaggerating?  Click the link above:  It goes to the Washington Post's so-called "fact checker," who gives all the quotes above but then simply gives Obozo a pass by saying
But the president apparently was never comfortable with his own words. So when new talking points were crafted to make this line seem less like an “Obama red line” and more like a world-backed red line, the president bungled the language again. He made it appear as if he was denying he had called it a red line, when that was obviously not the case.

Didja get that, citizens?  The WaPo concludes that not only did Obie NOT set a red line, that fact was (or should have been) obvious.

And note the Post's line about "new talking points were crafted to make this line seem less like an 'Obama red line" and more like a world-backed red line...."  If you have to "craft" talking points to make Obama's remarks "seem less like an Obama red line," it's pretty clear that the author understands that Obozo did indeed make that statement, and all else is PR to fool the gullible into thinking the opposite.

When do words not mean what they've always meant in the past?  When Democrats use them.

Amazingly, Obama managed to top even his "I didn't set a red line" comment in St. Petersburg by adding  "It's not my credibility that's at stake, but the credibility of the international community."

Ah.  Yes, certainly--it's not your credibility at stake.  Couldn't possibly be.

Again, the Obama solution is to simply say whatever you wish, even if not consistent with reality, and count on everyone to simply nod and believe you.

Cuz that's exactly how Obama has advanced in life at every juncture.

Monday, September 2

Dems support U.S. strike on Syria because "Assad is SOoo much worse than Saddam!"

It's so totally satisfying to watch Democrats beating the war drums to start bombing Syria over Assad's use of nerve gas on his own people.

I mean, what an amazing reversal of policy--a huge growth process.  Cuz just a few short years ago, when Bush was seeking (and received) approval from both congress and the U.N. to invade Iraq, and had assembled a coalition of something like 40 nations to help (though most had no combat forces to volunteer), the idea of bombing another nation that hadn't declared war on us first was...horrifying.  Shocking!  Un-American!

Sensing some hypocrisy here, citizen?  Perish the thought!  The Dems and their media comrades say there's nothing of the sort here, because Syria is radically different from Iraq 10 years ago:  Like, Syria's Assad has used nerve gas on his own people, whereas Saddam Hussein was a pretty likeable guy who would never do something like...

Wait...what??  You say Saddam ordered his commanders to drop nerve gas on three Kurdish villages around Halabja?  The devil you say!  What nonsense!  Pure propaganda!

What BBC video footage?  I don't believe it!  Everyone knows video can be faked.  And those people in that earlier video didn't look like they were really dead.  I think they were just sleeping.  Yeh, dat's it!

Besides, Assad is way worse than Saddam.  He invaded another country, whereas Saddam was just minding his own business, helping Iraq become more prosperous...

What??  You say Saddam--the guy Bush went after--invaded a place called Kuwait??  I don't believe it!  My brother had a friend who visited Kuwait just last year and didn't see a single Iraqi soldier the whole time he was there!  I think you're just making that up!

And you stupid wingnut rethuglicans claim Syria has never invaded a neighbor?  You can't know something like that!  You didn't live there, so you can't know for sure that Assad didn't invade some other country!  Our wonderful president--who by the way won the Nobel peace prize--said Assad is a bad man, and I believe our president.  Why would he lie?

So Syria is, like, way totally different from Iraq.  Plus, president Obama has gotten permission from the U.N. to do whatever, while Bush just defied everyone and invaded all on his own.

What do you mean, the U.N. didn't authorize Obama to strike Syria?  That can't be right.  Cuz, you know, president Obama would never attack if the U.N. didn't approve.  I mean, that's crazy talk!  He won the Nobel peace prize, fer hell's sake!

And you say Booosh got a "go" vote from the Security Council?  I doubt that!  You just make stuff up to support your position!  Everyone knows that Boosh was a cowboy, an outlaw.  MSNBC said so!  And so did Bill Mahr and Jon Stewart!  Why would they lie about that?

So since this guy in Syria is way worse than Saddam Hussein, if you don't support the president you're...you're...an isolationist!  Take that, you stupid Rethuglicans!  And tomorrow we're gonna' call you all raaacists, cuz all the pictures show Saddam had darker skin than this Assad guy.  So there!

Leftist writer: "Obama shouldn't negotiate on the debt ceiling ever again!"

The leftist rag Slate recently posted the following:
Getting sucked into a negotiation over raising the debt ceiling back in 2011 is one of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration ever made. It's one they avoided repeating the second time around and should never try to repeat again.
This seems to me to fairly summarize Democrat policy:  "We don't need to negotiate about raising the debt limit, because we own the White House and the senate.  So we can spend as much as we like and there's not a thing you wing-nut conservatives can do about it!"

If you think that's a bit over the top, consider the implications of the phrase "Getting sucked into a negotiation..."  The author implies that no negotiation was necessary--which implies that the so-called "debt limit" is inconsequential.  And indeed, the author follows by urging that Obama should never again negotiate over that ceiling.   

This strikes me as tantamount to saying that laws mean nothing when they would restrict a Democrat president from doing something he wants to do.  Oh, wait...we've seen numerous examples of that already:  Illegally selling guns to Mexican drug cartels; bombing Libya in violation of the War Powers Act; ordering immigration officers not to deport most illegal aliens (again, a violation of law); and unilaterally striking down provisions of his own signature Obamacare that would have kicked in before the crucial 2014 election.

If Democrats think the debt ceiling should be eliminated, let the president draw up a bill eliminating it, have his party comrades in congress submit it and then work to try to pass it.

If they're so powerful, why not do that?  Oh, that's right:  There's still one branch of congress they don't conrol--at least not yet.  But give it time, eh?  The more people who lose their jobs and go on unemployment and food stamps, the more Democrat voters.  It's just a matter of time before they regain control of the House.

Then there won't be any limits, just as when they controlled all three branches for the first two years of Obozo's first term.  They can repeal the debt ceiling, followed by the law of gravity and the law of supply and demand.  Because srsly, who believes those silly things are really "laws" anyway?  Just cuz some rayciss ol' white dudes back in the 1600s said 'em don't mean nuffin.

Ever read about some high-school student who is utterly convinced he can make a fortune testing video games?  Or about college students who are utterly convinced that if the U.S. would just scrap its armed forces, our opponents would do the same and war would never again occur?  Democrats, all.

I can't decide whether the Democrats' real slogan is "Reality doesn't matter," or "Reality is what we say it is."

When your fundamental principle is denying reality, does anyone think it's likely to have a good outcome?

And finally, the Slate writer's revealing summary:
Back in 2011, in an act of hubris and weakness, the administration decided that debt ceiling negotiations might be a good backdoor way to entrap both mainstream conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats into a "grand bargain" on long-term fiscal policy. We got no bargain, just a panic. It can't happen again.
So let's review:  He admits that negotiations were "a good backdoor way to entrap" both Republicans and liberal Democrats into concessions on spending, and then complains that it didn't work out so well?  Gee, think that may be a hint that "entrapment" is a lousy governing philosophy (at least for rational adults)?

Nah, he'll never make the connection.  While there are surely lots of honest, earnest Democrats, every one of the Dem leadership seems to operate on the principles of:  Deny reality, entrap or blackmail your opponents where possible, lie without qualm or consequence, even under oath, and blame Bush when nothing works out.   And with the cover of the mainstream media, they keep getting away with it.