Squaring the Culture

"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

06/30/2011 (10:43 am)

In the Wake of an Incoherent Press Conference…

The content of President Obama’s (I still cringe when I type that) opening statement in his press conference yesterday said two things in his usual, indirect and disingenuous manner:

  1. The bad economy is Congressional Republicans’ fault, not mine;
  2. We have to raise taxes on those awful, awful rich people, and those awful, awful oil companies, or the deficits will go on forever.

About the first, Obama’s infantile blame-shifting has long since ceased to surprise. The man has no idea how to improve things, all he knows how to do is blame other people. This is what we get when we elect to the highest executive office of the land an emotional infant who has never done anything other than stir up discontent in others. If he’s the best Democrats have to offer, the party should cease to exist. Obama is an embarrassment.

And no, I don’t mean like GWB was an embarrassment; he was an adult, and knew how to lead. The “incompetence” meme was just partisan noise from people who preferred different policy. I mean a real embarrassment; as in “shamefully exposing what passes for adulthood in the United States these days.”

About the second — raising taxes — I will say simply this:

Revenues to the federal government in 2010 were roughly $2.2 trillion. Stop there, and absorb it. That’s 2,200 billions of dollars. That’s more than 2 million millions. That’s more money than many world economies will ever produce, no matter how many years one measures. That’s how much money the US federal government can spend in one year without having to borrow.

If $2.2 trillion is not enough money with which to govern a nation the size of the United States, then we deserve to collapse.

The answer to anyone who whines that we need more revenue in order to balance the budget must be “Are you kidding?” The answer to anybody who cannot accept that as the final answer should be to be ushered out of government immediately and never allowed to return. If $2 trillion is not enough to run a government for a year, no sum will be enough.

No more revenue increases. Not now. Not ever. Enough.

Obama’s incessant theme of “let’s heap our hatred on the wealthy and ‘powerful'” deserves a separate post, and will get it eventually. Suffice to say here, it’s a deliberate misdirection, and it’s evil. The wealthy and the oil companies did not produce our fiscal nightmare, and fomenting vicious and irrational hatred toward them will not get us out of it.

06/15/2010 (7:28 pm)

President Zero

Since the topic of leadership has come to the fore lately, two of today’s stories from the Gulf region earn our attention:

Take 1, from The DESTIN Log, Destin, Fl:

Okaloosa defies Unified Command over East Pass plans

DESTIN — Okaloosa County isn’t taking oil spill orders any more.

County commissioners voted unanimously to give their emergency management team the power to take whatever action it deems necessary to prevent oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill from entering Choctawhatchee Bay through the East Pass.

That means the team, led by Public Safety Director Dino Villani, can take whatever action it sees fit to protect the pass without having its plans approved by state or federal authorities.

Take 2, from ABC News:

Gov. Bobby Jindal Orders National Guard to Build Barrier Wall Off Louisiana Shore

Louisiana Gov. Takes Matters Into Own Hands, But Will BP Foot the Bill?

Eight weeks into the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of the Mexico, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has told the National Guard that there’s no time left to wait for BP, so they’re taking matters into their own hands.

Before his speech, the president takes another look at the oil-tainted region.

In Fort Jackson, La., Jindal has ordered the Guard to start building barrier walls right in the middle of the ocean. The barriers, built nine miles off shore, are intended to keep the oil from reaching the coast by filling the gaps between barrier islands.

When there’s an absence of leadership at the top, individuals lower on the totem who have leadership skills take the initiative where they can. The situation there on the Gulf, with the oil coming ashore, is critical, and local leaders who know what needs to be done are saying “Protocol be damned, we’re tired of waiting for real leadership, let’s do something.”

Meanwhile, President Obama is attempting to turn the public relations tide in a manner that we’re getting used to seeing from him, by taking shots at his political adversaries and attempting to shift attention. Only, this time he merely proves what’s being said about him, that he hasn’t the slightest idea what’s involved in leadership. From Politico last Friday:

Obama to POLITICO: Some in Congress hypocritical on spill

In an interview with POLITICO, the president said: “I think it’s fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending…”

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said.

He’s completely without a clue.

Leadership is not about who has what power; it’s about who has ideas and initiative that others are eager to follow. He could have zero authority, but if he’s got leadership skills, he’d be taking action that others are willing to follow or emulate. He could be the tyrant of the world with all power, but if he doesn’t know how to lead, leaders further down the chain will start taking actions on their own. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the size or power of government, and everything to do with the character of the man in the Oval Office.

When you’re President, the entire nation pauses and waits to see what you’re doing, simply because you’re the one tasked with leading. It doesn’t matter what power the President has, if he has ideas that are worth following, people will follow willingly. Most people are eager to be led, and are just waiting for someone to show them what needs to be done.

Only, leading is not something a President is supposed to learn once he gets elected; we’re supposed to elect people who have already exhibited that quality. This is what a number of us were getting at when we pointed out during the election in 2008 that Obama had never really accomplished anything (nor had Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, for that matter.) I never liked John McCain, and I still don’t, but there’s no question he’d be taking charge of the Gulf cleanup in an appropriate manner if he’d been elected. Sarah Palin would be taking charge appropriately, too; she’s shown that quality. And we know perfectly well what sort of a leader George W. Bush was. For about 3 weeks following the World Trade Center attacks, even Democrats were heaving a sigh of relief that it was Bush and not Gore sitting in the Oval Office. His response to that situation was magnificent. (And then the shriekers from the Left started carping about what he did for 7 minutes after getting the first report about the WTC attack. Democrats are clueless, and worse, they’re vicious.)

So now the leaders in localities and states around the Gulf are taking matters into their own hands. This is the clearest evidence one could possibly garner to prove that there’s a hole at the top of the organization chart. Some partisans, during the election season in 2008, took to calling Obama “Zero.” I did not join in at that time. Nor did I complain much when I read reports about the President enjoying wagyu beef and scheduling a lot of parties; I don’t object if we as a nation allow those who serve the public some perks of high office, But he has to do something to earn the perks. This time he’s earned the name. We have an empty suit in the Oval Office. We have President Zero.

03/25/2010 (7:48 pm)

Obama: "Go For It" (Updated)

The Hill reports a speech by President Obama in which he challenges Republicans to try to repeal the health care reform act.

“This is the reform that some folks in Washington are still hollering about. And now that it’s passed, they’re already promising to repeal it,” Obama said. “They’re actually going to run on a platform of repeal in November. Well, I say go for it.”

This brings to mind President Bush’s similar moment of bravado, when, on July 1 of 2003 he declared his confidence in US military preparedness for destabilizing attacks in Iraq by saying “Bring it on.”

The most remarkable difference between these two challenges by two Presidents is this:

Obama’s enemies are Americans.

In fact, a Rasmussen telephone poll released today indicates that 55% of Americans polled favor repealing the health care act, 46% of them strongly. So the adversaries that Obama is challenging are the majority of American citizens.

President Bush later regretted the combative tone of his challenge, acknowledging that some around the world got the wrong message. But at least he was challenging America’s enemies.

The President’s speech was delivered in Iowa City, IA, where candidate Obama first announced his health care agenda,

UPDATE: American Elephants linked here (thanks, guys), and also found the video from the speech. Here’s the video:

10/09/2009 (3:19 pm)

Why the Nobel Committee Thinks So Highly of Barack


The Nobel Prize committee claims it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama because of “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” A friend points out that nominations for the Nobel closed as of 2/1/2009, so the extraordinary efforts apparently took place during his first 2 weeks in the White House, or while he was still a candidate. Hmmm…

Regardless, in the category of international relations, the President has spent the 9 months of his presidency touring the world apologizing for the US’ arrogance. Consequently, I found the cartoon to the right apropos of the Nobel committee’s esteem for the President, since it seems likely that the string of foreign misadventures listed in the cartoon are foremost among the arrogant acts for which the President is apologizing, and the sort of thing he will ensure the US will never perpetrate again. We all know how much the Nobel committee, composed as it is of adherents to World Socialism of one sort or another, finds this sort of pugnacious behavior a thorough-going hindrance to its own agenda of World Peace.

This cartoon, like the one in the previous post, is an Australian cartoon apparently not published in the US.

09/28/2009 (8:54 am)

Fox Ordered Not To Run Anti-Olympics Story?

That’s the headline on the top of the Drudge Report this morning. Drudge has never had to retract a story, but…

Sun Sep 27 2009 21:56:11 ET

A local TV station that reported on Chicagoans NOT wanting the Olympics has been told NOT to run the report again, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT!

The Chicago Olympic Committee told FOX Chicago that its broadcast “would harm Chicago’s chances” to be awarded the games.

The station’s news director ordered staff to hold fire after the report aired once last Thursday morning, claims a source.

Chicago is making a bid for the 2016 Olympics. Apparently, this is very, very important to the President of the United States, so important that he has an Olympics office in the White House and is making a trip to Copenhagen to visit the Olympic Committee.

However, there is a group in Chicago that is openly supporting the competing bid from Rio de Janero, in Brazil. In fact, there are as many Chicagoans opposing Olympics in Chicago as defending them. They fear it will be a windfall for corrupt politicians and contractors, but a huge drag on the economy of the city, which is already nearly bankrupt. They created an ad, which you can see below, that highlights their opposition to the Olympic bid, and they aired it on Fox News Thursday morning.

According to Drudge, Fox has been ordered not to run the ad again by Chicago’s Olympic Committee.

This is an intriguing claim. I can’t imagine anybody other than the owners of Fox News that would have the authority to order the news organization to do anything. To say they were “ordered” to drop the ad suggests a claim of greater authority, and possibly a threat. The story has no explanation, though.

Bossing people around seems to be the Chicago way, and also seems to be becoming the American way under President Obama. This story is of a piece with last week’s under-reported story concerning Humana insurance, which was threatened by the White House with lawsuits if they continued to send their customers political ads explaining how Obama’s health care plans threatened their benefits. It’s also of a piece with the thuggery of the Obama campaign’s attempts to control stories about candidate Obama that they did not want the public to hear. It is no surprise to those of us who were keeping our eyes open during the campaign, but it is becoming increasingly clear that President Obama hates free speech, and, like any dictator attempting to control the minds of the people in order to retain power, is doing whatever he can to end it.

Orders Fox not to run an ad? Orders them?

I know the White House has approached news organizations on patriotic grounds in the past, asking their assistance regarding war efforts; there are times when national security might be compromised by a story, and for the sake of defending the nation or protecting the troops, the President needs to ask for the cooperation of private news organizations. This is sobering, but not unheard of.

However, what we’re seeing here is not about national security, it’s about a city’s power brokers gaining wealth by winning a bid for Olympic games. This is not even a proper topic over which to ask a news organization not to run stories.

Steve Bartin explained the appeal of the Olympics to the corrupt city bosses in Chicago in an article a couple of weeks ago; basically, the Olympics present a marvelous opportunity for graft, enriching those who are fortunate enough to have connections at city hall. For everyone else, though, Olympics have been financial disasters, resulting in enormous long-term debt and seldom paying off vendors and businesses with the level of business they’ve been promised. The Chicagoans for Rio site explains in some detail. So does the No Games Chicago site. Basically, members of the one party that rules Chicago want to enrich themselves by breaking the city financially. This is corrupt.

Corruption is the enemy; it is the thing that must be rooted out first, if the United States is ever to become a viable nation again. The current administration promised to do this, but they seem to be a more virulent strain of the disease rather than the cure. If the Tea Party movement does not have the effect of rooting out corruption in both parties, both in Washington and in state capitols across the nation, it will have been a failure. Government must be smaller, but it must also be honest.

Hat tip to Michelle Malkin, who was on top of this story from the beginning. Her article is eye-opening. And she adds more today, too.

09/16/2009 (9:57 pm)

The Audacity of Hos

Jon Stewart of The Daily Show occasionally marks himself as an equal-opportunity insulter, something valuable and rare in these days of partisan-only news. Today, he’s taking on the ACORN scandal that major news media have simply blacked out. Listen:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Healthcare Protests

The piece that nearly everybody is missing about this incident is that the President used to work for this organization and help train its members. The picture I used with my article about Obama’s middle years with ACORN and the New Party, reproduced at the bottom of this post, shows him teaching the power dynamics of self-interest in the community, a topic he also apparently taught to ACORN volunteers. All web-based content documenting this association was pulled after the McCain campaign and conservative bloggers started drawing attention to it (as was normal for any web-based information shedding light on Obama’s radical past,) but if he really did train volunteers for ACORN, and if the organization really is this lawless, we have every reason to believe that the President regards with contempt the laws of the land he leads. I have seen nothing in his conduct of the tasks of the office of President to make me certain that this is not so.

We may hope that appropriate attention will finally be paid to the criminal enterprise of ACORN, to which a number of conservatives have been attempting to draw attention for several years. It’s hard to imagine a more partisan organization, and it is clear that their intent in nearly every enterprise is to render society unworkable by undermining laws. It is a complete shame that such an organization has been permitted to continue to milk the public treasury by pretending to be non-profit and non-partisan, and a genuine scandal that the President directed $800,000 of his campaign funds to this band of criminals, and then directed literally billions of dollars of public money toward them in the form of contracts, stimulus funding, and education funding.

Michelle Malkin characteristically has the best coverage today of the ACORN scandal, and has the best links concerning their ongoing criminal ventures as well.


09/12/2009 (4:01 pm)

Mr. President, You Lie

“Con men understand that their job is not to use facts to convince skeptics but to use words to help the gullible to believe what they want to believe. No message has been more welcomed by the gullible, in countries around the world, than the promise of something for nothing. That is the core of Barack Obama’s medical care plan.”

Thomas Sowell, “Rhetoric and Fraud,” GOPUSA, Sept 9, 2009.

Sowell captures it succinctly. Something for nothing. A con.

Moderates and Democrats want us to take the President’s speech on its face and consider the plan as he presented it Wednesday night. I am not apt to do that. Why? Because it’s a lie, and we know it.

The man who currently holds the office of President of the United States looked straight at his teleprompter and said that he stood for “a new kind of politics.”

Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that’s what we have to change first.

He proceeded to send dozens of researchers to destroy the reputation of his opponent’s candidate for Vice President, sent out armies of supporters to hack and interfere with opponents’ web sites and videos, and raised hundreds of millions of dollars through unfiltered sources that looked strangely like a money laundering scheme. Then he passed stimulus legislation that was written by Democratic partisans who shut Republicans out of the room, appointed dozens of the farthest-left administrators and judges the country has known, launches attacks through shills to demonize any opponent, and continues to govern from the far left, only occasionally tossing a bone in the direction of the Republicans.

He lied.

The man who currently holds the office of the President of the United States promised to run the most transparent administration ever, with major meetings broadcast on C-SPAN. He then proceeded to ram complex legislation through Congress in the dead of night, before anybody had read the bill, which had been written with his opponents locked out of the room (and then, after excusing such tactics because of the urgency, took a family vacation for four days before signing the bill.) He tried to do it again with health care legislation. He holds secret meetings with major corporate interests at secret locations, and cuts deals protecting the largest of them. He dissembles about his proposals and sends minions to besmirch anybody who blows the whistle on it.

He lied.

The man who currently holds the office of the President of the United States declared an end to lobbying and big money influences. Then he wrote a bill worth almost $800 billion, and nearly all of it aimed at contributors to his political campaigns. He took over automobile companies and attempted to shut down the dealerships of those who opposed his candidacy. He continues to write legislation that protects the biggest players in every market he touches, giving them near-monopoly status as he makes it impossible for smaller competitors to rise up and displace them. Instead of politics without influences, he practices the worst sort of Chicago ward politics.

In a mere 8 months of the Obama administration, after having him on the national scene only since 2007, we have become accustomed to Barack Obama looking straight at the teleprompter and saying precisely what he thinks the public wants to hear. Then, he goes and does precisely what he wants. Any connection between the two is either coincidental, or forced by public outcry.

So, when the President looks at the teleprompter and says “I do not intend to put health insurance companies out of business,” or “Nothing in this plan will force you to change your doctor or your insurer,” or “No federal money will go to pay for abortions,” what should we imagine that has to do with the actual contents of the bill?

Answer? Not a thing.

Two accusations of lies were made Wednesday night. One was made by a frustrated Representative of the people of South Carolina. He apologized after the fact. He should not have. He was correct.

The other was made by the President of the United States. He did not apologize for his accusation. He was wrong; his opponents are telling the truth, and I believe he knows it.

The plan proffered by the President loads insurance companies down with new requirements. It forces them to accept the highest-cost new customers without allowing charges to balance the costs. It forces them to cover various sorts of preventive checkups. It promises even more stringent limits on their profit-making ability. Then, it forces them to compete with a government program that the President guarantees will be lower-cost than private insurance. The plan also sets a tax penalty for employers’ failure to offer health insurance that is far below the actual cost to an employer of offering health insurance — which incents employers to dump their coverage and pay the penalty instead. The plan also prohibits citizens from shopping for a new insurer, or finding a new one they like if they change jobs. This is a picture of a plan carefully designed to drive private insurers from the market.

madbobIn the face of this, the President says “I do not intend to force insurance companies out of business.” He lies.

The President cites a problem of limited competition between insurers as his excuse for forcing a government insurance program into the mix (which will eventually become the sole payer in American medicine.) He fails to mention that the only reason, the only reason, that there are so few insurers competing is that government will not permit them to. Companies would gladly compete in new markets, and would offer products tailored to specific customer needs, if liberals in state governments had not long ago passed laws preventing it. The same liberals loaded insurers down with requirements that health insurance policies for 70-year-old, childless couples must cover them if they need breast implants, which is one of the main reasons insurance costs so much. He claims we need to spend a trillion dollars in the next ten years to solve these government-caused problems. He lies.

The President still maintains that he can finance the entire program through premiums collected. Even he could not possibly believe this; his own plan provides ten years of funding to cover eight years of program, and relies on savings that he has no idea how to obtain, and that Congressional researchers claims simply will not work. He lies.

The President maintains that it is somehow irresponsible for individuals to choose not to purchase health insurance. He said,

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those – particularly the young and healthy – who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don’t sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people’s expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don’t provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.

I don’t recall hearing anything quite so twisted yet this year. We don’t pick up the tab for those who don’t buy health insurance if they pay their bills; but we doggone well do pick up the tab if they’re insured by the government and we’re in the insurance pool. What does he think? That if a person has insurance, they get care for free, and nobody pays? Actually, while I imagine the President does understand how insurance works, I’m fairly certain he’s counting on the fact that most people listening to him don’t, and that they somehow imagine that if people have insurance, their care costs nobody anything. And he offers this twisted analysis to sucker them in.

Furthermore, businesses not offering their employees health insurance costs none of us a penny. But even if it somehow “forces us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick” as the President said (I can’t imagine how this occurs), the result would be higher prices for that employer, and they would go out of business. If the President’s reasoning held (it does not), employers would be powerfully incented to cover their workers.

So, on the basis of this twisted nonsense, he intends to force us to buy what some of us choose not to have. Tell me, where does he obtain the right to do this? Certainly not from any governmental document I’ve ever read. It’s frankly unconstitutional. But it’s something worse than that. It’s a blizzard of words that mean absolutely nothing, and he knows it. It’s just more of saying what he thinks people want to hear. He’s a con. He lies.

I could go on, but I will not. Nobody sane believes this plan will finance itself, and will not add to the deficit. Nobody sane believes abortions will not be funded. Nobody sane believes illegals will not get into the program. Nobody sane believes the government will not deny care to far, far more people than insurers are currently denying, in order to cut costs.

I learned a long time ago, if you’re dealing with somebody that you already know is trying to trick you, the only safe play is to stay the hell away from them. Even if you catch some of the tricks, there’s always the possibility — probability, really — that there’s some other item that you missed. It never pays to deal with liars; you have to be able to trust the people with whom you strike deals.

The only way I will ever support any plan produced by this President, no matter how cooperative he seems, is if by some miracle he goes for the next few years without uttering a single falsehood, without demagoguery, without lies about his opponents, without weasel words and fluff. I think if he did that long enough, I might regain enough trust to believe he’s actually dealing straight, and not trying to put one over. But let’s face it, that is not going to happen. People are the way they are, and they seldom change. We’ve seen enough of Barack Obama to know this without a shadow of a doubt: he lies. Constantly. With ill intent.

No, I will not support his health care program.

08/04/2009 (3:09 pm)

Requires No Comment (Updated)

objVia Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ. Creepy, ain’t it?

Viguerie is among those who recommends use of Saul Alinsky’s tactics against the left, which has used those same tactics to demolish American liberty. I personally have a problem with doing this if it involves falsehood and character assassination. However, I don’t think this particular image misses the mark by much; in fact, I believe the true source of socialism is something a great deal more ominous than that which the image suggests.

UPDATE, 8/5: Ok, so it does need commentary.

I told somebody this morning, a little embarrassed, that this is the first time I’ve ever posted any truly offensive graphic image on my blog. That turns out to be untrue. I posted a montage of Bush/chimpanzee comparisons back in February, illustrating my response to the left’s outrage that a cartoonist might have represented the President as a chimp (he hadn’t, but that was beside the point.) What’s ironic here is that the Bush/chimp motif was so common during the Bush years that though I thought it was in extremely bad taste, it did not strike me as something too controversial to post on my rather mild blog.

It is so unusual for conservatives to treat a President in the manner that Obama/Joker treats this one, though, that I felt moved to post it just to stir the pot.

It turns out that the motif is not even original; Vanity Fair did a version of President Bush as Joker in July 2008, as recalled by The Smallest Minority yesterday. And Mark Hemingway at The Corner at the National Review reminds us of 8 years of anti-Bush art praised by the left, including dozens of instances of Bush as Hitler or the devil, and one of a lynched mannekin dressed as Sarah Palin. So, offensive as it is, Obama/Joker will stay here, if for no other reason than for leftists to feel just a small twinge of what they inflicted on the rest of us for the past 8 years.

Hat tip goes to walkercolt, who provided the link to Smallest Majority in the comments section, below.

07/24/2009 (6:26 am)

ObAmateur President Disses Cops

crow3It’s a tempest in a teapot, but it’s a tempest created personally by the President of the United States, so it’s worth a few words.

Police arrested noted intellectual Henry Louis Gates Jr. outside his own home in Cambridge last week when he became disorderly upon being asked for his identification. Police were investigating a report of a black man attempting to force the door of a home; Gates was, in fact, forcing the door of his own home because he had forgotten his keys. Gates apparently yelled at the police repeatedly and accused them of racism, and after being warned, was arrested for disorderly conduct. Charges have since been dropped.

A reporter fishing for a race story during the President’s press conference on Wednesday asked the President what the incident said about race relations in America. If the President had simply answered the question generally, none of us would be talking about this a week after the incident. However, this President Knows All, and gave his view of the actual incident, claiming “The Cambridge police acted stupidly.” The arresting officer, who teaches a course in racial profiling at the Lowell, MA Police Academy, refuses to apologize, but also will not comment on the incident.

I’m having difficulty embedding the shockwave clips of the two interviews: readers may view the President’s full remarks here, and the comments of the arresting officer here.

What strikes me is the contrast between the maturity of the two individuals — and it’s the local cop who’s showing up the President of the United States.

If the first words out of a man’s mouth are “I do not know the facts of the case,” the next words must be “so I cannot comment.” After saying “I cannot comment,” the speaker should not comment. Our leader does not possess the maturity to discipline his speech in this manner. As a consequence, policemen across the entire nation now know that the President does not value their professionalism, and does not trust them to execute their jobs properly. Wags and fools across the entire nation have now been vindicated in their ill-informed critiques of trained law enforcement professionals exercising proper procedure. A good day’s work, Mr. President.

The President’s attempt the next day at winning the argument that he started does not help matters. “It doesn’t make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he’s not causing a serious disturbance,” lectured He Who Knows All. It is the job of the officer on the scene to judge whether the citizen is causing a serious enough disturbance to warrant arrest; and yet, our President feels competent to second-guess this experienced officer, even without investigation. “I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do,” the president told ABC’s Terry Moran. I think he does not, and I think every policeman in America knows it; if he did, he would be deferring to the judgment of the arresting officer until the matter had been investigated.

Can anybody imagine any prior President, including the appropriately-maligned President “Jimmy”, who would have gone on record as saying “the police acted stupidly” without investigating first? or who would have the bad grace to defend his criticism?

04/04/2009 (9:53 am)

What Does It Say to the World? (Updated)

I didn’t say anything when it happened, but it’s part of a growing concern about exactly who the President is… and this, from someone who feels he did his homework in advance of the election. I freely admit, there seems to be more — or perhaps less — to President Obama than any of us suspected.

From Hot Air, with a hat tip to The Anchoress: A Tale of Two Bows.

Where are the Progressives, I wonder, who shrieked so loudly about the 19 Saudis among the 9/11 attackers? Surely they’re now recognizing that President Obama was a participant along with the Bush Crime Family in the great conspiracy to attack America, right?

Ok, that was snarky. But now I have to say this: I paid zero attention to the “Obama is a Muslim” talk that flew around the Internet during the campaign season. I saw reasons to associate him with black separatists, with corrupt Chicago politicians, with campus radicals, with Saul Alinsky and other activists… but the few years he spent in a mixed-religion elementary school registered as the son of a Muslim did not strike me as indicating anything worth our concern.

I am no longer ignoring that. The bow to the Saudi monarch inevitably raises the question: what was he doing, and why? We now need an answer, and it’s the President, himself, who has opened this line of inquiry.

By the way, in case you haven’t seen it, Chris Muir, who draws the Day-By-Day cartoon that appears on my sidebar, produced a graphic for Hot Air to commemorate Amateur Moments from the “Less Than” President. I love it. Here it is:



We are SO screwed…

UPDATE: My friend Neil Mammen (http://www.noblindfaith.com) who was raised in the Middle East — in the Sudan and Yemen Lebanon, if I’m not mistaken (I was mistaken) — wonders out loud why President Obama is bowing like a serf to King Abdulla. He says the gesture means that the US is supplicant to Saudi Arabia, that the US is afraid of Saudi Arabia, and that negotiating anything with the Saudis is out of the question since the Saudis hold all the power.

Neil explains that in the Middle East, whenever two leaders meet, convention requires them to treat each other as equals (unless one is already subservient to the other.) Leaders from around the Middle East will watch the interaction between them looking for signs indicating who is subservient to whom. They will judge which is the weaker based on what they see.

The short version seems to be that the President Obama has just signaled to the entire Middle East that the US is weak and subservient to Saudi Arabia.

Thought you might like to know.

By the way, if you visit Neil’s site, those fine-looking women modeling his “No Blind Faith” T-shirts are his family. I mention this just in case you get to wondering why a low-budget Christian apologetics organization is hiring hot models to display their gear. It threw me the first time I went there.

Older Posts »