Remember when Leftists got their collective panties in a bunch over George W. Bush joking at a White House Correspondents' Dinner about looking for WMDs? You would have thought Bush shot a baby seal in front of a busload of Catholic school children the way they bashed him.
Flash forward to this past Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner and the following comment from Barack Obama:
Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I'm joking?
Now, consider that under Obama one third of those killed by predator drones have been civilians.
Any Leftist Obama Defender want to defend his joke? Or will we be treated to the sound of silence yet again?
Monday, May 3, 2010
Leftist Coward Watch - Day 1
One day after I pointed out how cowardly my Leftist counterpart is for not allowing people to comment on his "blog" (which bashes me while simultaneously relying on me for his material because, well, he's too much of a coward or a leech to come up with anything original), he responds with the typical Leftist tactic.
Calling me a racist.
And yet, it was people like him who voted for Obama solely based on race. That's not "right wing spin" as my Leftist counterpart will claim: those are the words of the voters themselves.
And while we're here, why did Obama wait over twice as long to visit the Gulf Coast as Bush took to survey the damage after Katrina? Was begging for votes THAT important? In fact, let's take a look at the various events Obama felt were more important than visiting the people along the Gulf Coast:
- saying Wall Street needs more regulation (while exempting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from that same oversight in spite of their direct impact on the current mortgage situation)
- delivering a speech about Earth Day and its contributions to environmental awareness (as the oil spill got larger in the Gulf)
- criticizing Arizona's new immigration law (in spite of the fact that the Arizona law mirrors existing federal law)
- taking a weekend away from the White House and visiting with Rev. Billy Graham (How many barrels of oil did that waste, Mr. President?)
- giving an impromptu press conference on Air Force One
From April 20 to April 29, Obama didn't even mention the oil spill. And this weekend, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said they had "all hands on deck" since the beginning.
All hands...except Obama's, apparently.
And for me pointing out Obama's lack of leadership on this issue, the Leftist coward who simultaneously hates me and relies on me for his very blogging existence calls me a racist.
At least I didn't vote for an inept Leftist because of his skin color. Can you say the same, Mr. Leftist Coward?
Calling me a racist.
And yet, it was people like him who voted for Obama solely based on race. That's not "right wing spin" as my Leftist counterpart will claim: those are the words of the voters themselves.
And while we're here, why did Obama wait over twice as long to visit the Gulf Coast as Bush took to survey the damage after Katrina? Was begging for votes THAT important? In fact, let's take a look at the various events Obama felt were more important than visiting the people along the Gulf Coast:
- saying Wall Street needs more regulation (while exempting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from that same oversight in spite of their direct impact on the current mortgage situation)
- delivering a speech about Earth Day and its contributions to environmental awareness (as the oil spill got larger in the Gulf)
- criticizing Arizona's new immigration law (in spite of the fact that the Arizona law mirrors existing federal law)
- taking a weekend away from the White House and visiting with Rev. Billy Graham (How many barrels of oil did that waste, Mr. President?)
- giving an impromptu press conference on Air Force One
From April 20 to April 29, Obama didn't even mention the oil spill. And this weekend, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said they had "all hands on deck" since the beginning.
All hands...except Obama's, apparently.
And for me pointing out Obama's lack of leadership on this issue, the Leftist coward who simultaneously hates me and relies on me for his very blogging existence calls me a racist.
At least I didn't vote for an inept Leftist because of his skin color. Can you say the same, Mr. Leftist Coward?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Why the Gulf Oil Spill Isn't Obama's Katrina
Because President Obama doesn't have an out. His delays are by his own design, not because of incompetent Democrat Mayors and Governors (which is what caused the delays Bush encountered in responding to the Katrina situation).
That's right. Bush's delays were caused by...Democrats.
So, what's Obama's excuse?
Oh, and to my Leftist counterpart, until you open your blog to let others post responses (like I've done from the beginning), you're still a coward.
That's right. Bush's delays were caused by...Democrats.
So, what's Obama's excuse?
Oh, and to my Leftist counterpart, until you open your blog to let others post responses (like I've done from the beginning), you're still a coward.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
When Obama Worshippers Get Caught Lying...
Because my Leftist counterpart is scared of letting people comment directly to his blog because they'd pound his arguments into nothingness, I can't post this bit of information about how the Obama Administration didn't react quickly enough to the Gulf Coast oil spill.
So, I'll do it here. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/obamas-katrina-illustrated-timeline.html
A tip of the hat to Doug Ross for compiling it.
Now, to my Leftist counterpart who claimed the Administration acted "on hour one," don't you feel stupid for not digging into the facts?
Oh, by the way, Obama is supposed to be down in the Gulf tomorrow. From April 20 to May 2 is 12 days, counting the actual day the spill began. By comparison, George W. Bush waited a whole five days before heading to Katrina (August 29, when Katrina made landfall in New Orleans, to September 2, when Bush actually visited).
Gee. Bush made it down to New Orleans in less than half the time it's taken Obama to make it to the Gulf Coast, and some would lead us to believe Obama acted "on hour one"?
So, I'll do it here. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/obamas-katrina-illustrated-timeline.html
A tip of the hat to Doug Ross for compiling it.
Now, to my Leftist counterpart who claimed the Administration acted "on hour one," don't you feel stupid for not digging into the facts?
Oh, by the way, Obama is supposed to be down in the Gulf tomorrow. From April 20 to May 2 is 12 days, counting the actual day the spill began. By comparison, George W. Bush waited a whole five days before heading to Katrina (August 29, when Katrina made landfall in New Orleans, to September 2, when Bush actually visited).
Gee. Bush made it down to New Orleans in less than half the time it's taken Obama to make it to the Gulf Coast, and some would lead us to believe Obama acted "on hour one"?
...But I Won't Be Holding My Breath
Sometimes the hypocrisy of the Left is so funny to watch sometimes. Remember how they howled at George W. Bush "dragging his feet" on Katrina (FEMA and federal law be damned!)? Well, with the oil spill near the Gulf Coast occurring on Earth Day, Barack Obama has surpassed even the seemingly egregious delays the Left pinned on Bush. And what has the Left said about it?
Nothing.
They've stayed quiet, and I'll bet they're already working on a backstory about how Obama "wanted to review all the options on the table before acting." Dude, it's an oil spill. You fix the hole and clean it up. No need to convene the Cabinet or some think tank to figure that one out. All it takes is action.
And that's where Obama has been lacking in leadership. On relatively simple matters, he's slow to act, which isn't a virtue no matter how much the press and Obama's supporters try to make it one. If you delay on a simple problem, it gives the impression of insecurity, which can be devastating to one's image as a leader.
Then, there are the big issues, like health care reform. Obama was relatively quick to act on that, but only to hand off the issue to Congress. That's not a sign of good leadership either because it gives the impression that you're only good at coming up with what needs to be done, but lack the ability to see it through to the end. Congressional Democrats were clearly upset at the lack of direction from the White House during the health care reform debate, as they should have been. It was Obama's idea to push health care reform during his first year, so he should have been the one making the arguments in favor of it. Aside from a couple of infomercials and the occasional town hall meeting talking about it, Obama's leadership on the issue was lacking.
But it goes beyond a lack of leadership. After the Left attacked George W. Bush's delays in addressing the Katrina situation, they set themselves up as being better capable of handling a major issue, and I would think an oil spill counts as a major issue. A failure to act in that context shows the hypocrisy of the Left as clearly as anything I could post.
Of course, the Left could surprise us by criticizing the President for not acting quickly enough. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for it...
Nothing.
They've stayed quiet, and I'll bet they're already working on a backstory about how Obama "wanted to review all the options on the table before acting." Dude, it's an oil spill. You fix the hole and clean it up. No need to convene the Cabinet or some think tank to figure that one out. All it takes is action.
And that's where Obama has been lacking in leadership. On relatively simple matters, he's slow to act, which isn't a virtue no matter how much the press and Obama's supporters try to make it one. If you delay on a simple problem, it gives the impression of insecurity, which can be devastating to one's image as a leader.
Then, there are the big issues, like health care reform. Obama was relatively quick to act on that, but only to hand off the issue to Congress. That's not a sign of good leadership either because it gives the impression that you're only good at coming up with what needs to be done, but lack the ability to see it through to the end. Congressional Democrats were clearly upset at the lack of direction from the White House during the health care reform debate, as they should have been. It was Obama's idea to push health care reform during his first year, so he should have been the one making the arguments in favor of it. Aside from a couple of infomercials and the occasional town hall meeting talking about it, Obama's leadership on the issue was lacking.
But it goes beyond a lack of leadership. After the Left attacked George W. Bush's delays in addressing the Katrina situation, they set themselves up as being better capable of handling a major issue, and I would think an oil spill counts as a major issue. A failure to act in that context shows the hypocrisy of the Left as clearly as anything I could post.
Of course, the Left could surprise us by criticizing the President for not acting quickly enough. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for it...
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
If You Can't Beat 'Em...
One thing I've noticed about the Left over the years is that they have trouble facing reality as it is. When someone, like yours truly, disagrees with the Left on any point, it threatens their version of reality, which makes them defensive. Then, they pull out anything they can from their bag of Alinsky-inspired tricks.
Take the TEA Parties. When they started last year, the Left ignored them at first. As they grew in popularity, the Left brought out their big guns and started mocking them. Now that many more Americans believe in the basic principles of the TEA Parties, the Left are resorting to slander, calling them racist and anti-government. Some on the left have gone so far as to compare the TEA Parties to the Ku Klux Klan and Timothy McVeigh. Of course, the truth is few, if any, arrests have been made at TEA Parties and the rhetoric that you'll find at these events are anything but racist and anti-government. (And I'm sure my Leftist counterpart will go out of his way to post pictures "proving" me "wrong," but there's a vast difference between being an advocate of smaller government and being anti-government.)
The TEA Parties aren't the only ones getting slimed by the Leftists. Financial institutions (Goldman Sachs), insurance companies (AIG), mortgage companies, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and countless others have been slandered and libeled by the Leftists, all because they disagree with the President. (Of course, when it was the Left disagreeing with George W. Bush, it was patriotic, according to Hillary Clinton and the Left...) The Left may think it's "speaking truth to power" by attacking Republicans and conservatives dishonestly, but I think there's another reason.
They're scared of losing everything they've built in the past few years.
Back in 2006, the Left used a series of carefully crafted lies to get back into power in Congress. Then, they went along and did everything they chastised Republicans for doing, but more of it. Then, in 2008, the Left ran a candidate who ripped everything George W. Bush did...and then copied a lot of it once he got into the Oval Office. Their political ascension of recent years has been based on lies, and people are starting to realize it. The more people who see through the Left's lies, the fewer people the Left can keep on their side. That makes them desperate.
That's when the Left turns to slander and libel to diminish the impact that their opponents have. In other words, the Left tries to protect its lies by lying even more. Yeah, that always works.
Take the TEA Parties. When they started last year, the Left ignored them at first. As they grew in popularity, the Left brought out their big guns and started mocking them. Now that many more Americans believe in the basic principles of the TEA Parties, the Left are resorting to slander, calling them racist and anti-government. Some on the left have gone so far as to compare the TEA Parties to the Ku Klux Klan and Timothy McVeigh. Of course, the truth is few, if any, arrests have been made at TEA Parties and the rhetoric that you'll find at these events are anything but racist and anti-government. (And I'm sure my Leftist counterpart will go out of his way to post pictures "proving" me "wrong," but there's a vast difference between being an advocate of smaller government and being anti-government.)
The TEA Parties aren't the only ones getting slimed by the Leftists. Financial institutions (Goldman Sachs), insurance companies (AIG), mortgage companies, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and countless others have been slandered and libeled by the Leftists, all because they disagree with the President. (Of course, when it was the Left disagreeing with George W. Bush, it was patriotic, according to Hillary Clinton and the Left...) The Left may think it's "speaking truth to power" by attacking Republicans and conservatives dishonestly, but I think there's another reason.
They're scared of losing everything they've built in the past few years.
Back in 2006, the Left used a series of carefully crafted lies to get back into power in Congress. Then, they went along and did everything they chastised Republicans for doing, but more of it. Then, in 2008, the Left ran a candidate who ripped everything George W. Bush did...and then copied a lot of it once he got into the Oval Office. Their political ascension of recent years has been based on lies, and people are starting to realize it. The more people who see through the Left's lies, the fewer people the Left can keep on their side. That makes them desperate.
That's when the Left turns to slander and libel to diminish the impact that their opponents have. In other words, the Left tries to protect its lies by lying even more. Yeah, that always works.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Bass-Ackwards "Solution"
President Barack Obama has a lot of problems on his plate these days. From the economy to health care to foreign policy, it's amazing to consider everything Obama has to deal with on a daily basis. That requires a keen attention to detail and a solutions-oriented approach.
Unfortunately, Obama seems to lack both. If anything, Obama has shown a decided lack of these skills or at least a Bizarro World approach to problems.
Take the health care reform battle, for example. With unemployment skyrocketing, Obama decides health care is the most important issue because of the millions of people who aren't covered by health insurance. Okay, but how does that put people to work? Sure, you're creating a government bureaucracy, but that's not really helping the economy by creating jobs in the private sector. When you consider, though, that health insurance is included with a good number of jobs these days, a logical approach to the coverage issue might be...oh I don't know...getting people into jobs with health insurance. Not only would it get the uninsured the coverage Obama thinks they need, but it would also tackle the unemployment issue and go a long way towards improving the economy. Instead, Obama decided to attack a symptom instead of the disease.
In doing so, Obama has committed to working on the problem from the wrong end. Get people health insurance coverage and then worry about their ability to pay for it. Oh, and in a completely unrelated story, around half of American households pay no income tax as was reported recently. So guess who gets to pay for Obama's largess. That's right, the other half, who probably already have health insurance coverage. Yeah, that will sit well.
In foreign policy, Obama is no better. We have serious issues on the horizon with Iran developing nuclear technology. They say it's for power generation, but when you consider Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the world, I'm thinking it's for other reasons than energy generation. Obama is committed to dealing with Iran, but recent talks about the Iranian nuclear program included a discussion about another country in that neck of the woods, Israel. Seems Obama wants Israel to stand down at the same time he wants Iran to stand down.
Okay, how many other people reading that had a WTF moment? Just checking.
It's good that Obama wants to address the Iranian situation, but why bring Israel into it? Iranian President Imadinnerjacket has said repeatedly that he wants to destroy Israel, so it would seem logical that Israel would want to defend itself through whatever means they have at their disposal, which includes...nuclear weapons. The likelihood that Iran will abide by the terms of any agreement is unlikely at best, but Israel has a track record of following our lead as best they can.
Whether Israel will go along with the Obama plan to scale down both Iran and Israel is up in the air yet, but it doesn't undercut one of the major issues behind it: Obama's wrongheaded approach to solving problems. It's one thing to come up with a solution that doesn't work and have to go back to the drawing board. It's another to make the same mistakes in different scenarios and never correct them.
At this point, Obama is clearly on the latter path. That can only have negative implications down the road.
Unfortunately, Obama seems to lack both. If anything, Obama has shown a decided lack of these skills or at least a Bizarro World approach to problems.
Take the health care reform battle, for example. With unemployment skyrocketing, Obama decides health care is the most important issue because of the millions of people who aren't covered by health insurance. Okay, but how does that put people to work? Sure, you're creating a government bureaucracy, but that's not really helping the economy by creating jobs in the private sector. When you consider, though, that health insurance is included with a good number of jobs these days, a logical approach to the coverage issue might be...oh I don't know...getting people into jobs with health insurance. Not only would it get the uninsured the coverage Obama thinks they need, but it would also tackle the unemployment issue and go a long way towards improving the economy. Instead, Obama decided to attack a symptom instead of the disease.
In doing so, Obama has committed to working on the problem from the wrong end. Get people health insurance coverage and then worry about their ability to pay for it. Oh, and in a completely unrelated story, around half of American households pay no income tax as was reported recently. So guess who gets to pay for Obama's largess. That's right, the other half, who probably already have health insurance coverage. Yeah, that will sit well.
In foreign policy, Obama is no better. We have serious issues on the horizon with Iran developing nuclear technology. They say it's for power generation, but when you consider Iran is sitting on one of the largest oil deposits in the world, I'm thinking it's for other reasons than energy generation. Obama is committed to dealing with Iran, but recent talks about the Iranian nuclear program included a discussion about another country in that neck of the woods, Israel. Seems Obama wants Israel to stand down at the same time he wants Iran to stand down.
Okay, how many other people reading that had a WTF moment? Just checking.
It's good that Obama wants to address the Iranian situation, but why bring Israel into it? Iranian President Imadinnerjacket has said repeatedly that he wants to destroy Israel, so it would seem logical that Israel would want to defend itself through whatever means they have at their disposal, which includes...nuclear weapons. The likelihood that Iran will abide by the terms of any agreement is unlikely at best, but Israel has a track record of following our lead as best they can.
Whether Israel will go along with the Obama plan to scale down both Iran and Israel is up in the air yet, but it doesn't undercut one of the major issues behind it: Obama's wrongheaded approach to solving problems. It's one thing to come up with a solution that doesn't work and have to go back to the drawing board. It's another to make the same mistakes in different scenarios and never correct them.
At this point, Obama is clearly on the latter path. That can only have negative implications down the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)