Does our President need a spanking?

March 31, 2011

There are several way to explain President Obama’s often-odd, against self-interests behavior in office: he’s passive; he doesn’t like detail; or he lacks executive experience. I’ve often resorted to “He’s a Socialist ideologue and what he does makes perfect sense if one interprets it in light of Alinskyite incremental stealth Socialism and Black Liberation Theology,” though admittedly that’s a mouthful to say over the dinner table.

But, in all honesty, when I read something like this, I have to admit I can’t explain the sheer bloody-minded stupidity of it all:

President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.

The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.

This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.

(Emphases added.)

I mean, didn’t someone on the staff point out the self-defeating and embarrassing irony of this? Accepting an award for transparency in conditions of secrecy that would make Nixon proud?

Seriously, what is going through his head?

Okay, call me nuts, but I have a theory: We all know of the President’s ego. He thinks the world of himself, he was raised in relative ease, and was never really, truly challenged in a knock-down, drag out, gut check kind of way. He’s pretty much glided from promotion to promotion, a living example of the Peter Principle. When he became president, he expected things would go as smoothly as they had in the past, and that glib words from him would be enough to get by.

But it didn’t work out that way. The presidency is unlike any other job, and you don’t succeed at it with just some nice speeches and TV interviews.

And Obama, for the first time in his life, found himself being held responsible — and he didn’t like it!

So now he’s acting petulantly: the press doesn’t fawn (as much) over him anymore? Fine. He’ll bar them from his transparency award ceremony and to heck with how it looks! I mean, did you listen to his tone in parts of his speech on Libya? It was as if he was scolding or chiding the American people for daring to question him.

I still think he’s a Socialist, but now I’m convinced he’s an immature passive-aggressive Socialist and what we’re seeing is him “acting out.”

It’s come to this, my friends: Our president needs a time out.

via Moe Lane

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


1 Gurkha vs. 30 Taliban: guess who didn’t stand a chance?

March 30, 2011

Sergeant Dipprasad Pun unloaded 400 rounds of ammo and 17 grenades at the Taliban. He detonated a mine. But they kept coming. So, when the grenades ran out and his weapon wouldn’t fire, what did he do? He grabbed a makeshift club and charged:

Sgt Pun told yesterday how he was on guard duty at the base near Rahim Kalay in Helmand Province on September 10 last year when he heard a digging sound in the darkness in front of him.

Grabbing two radios, a GPMG (general purpose machine gun), his SA80 rifle, a grenade launcher and an arsenal of hand-held grenades he climbed onto the rooftop and opened fire.

With rocket propelled grenades and gun fire flying over his head from all directions he defended the position for more than 15 minutes, killing three Taliban and forcing the others to flee.

At one point the diminutive soldier turned around to see a “huge” Taliban fighter approaching him on the rooftop, a few feet away, having silently scaled the wall, and shot him.

While the mass of Taliban fired from an area of open ground, another crept into the compound and tried to climb the wall but he spotted him.

“I tried to fire my SA80 but it wouldn’t work,” he said.

“I don’t know if there was an obstruction or the magazine was finished.

“I threw my SA80 down and grabbed a sandbag but it wasn’t tied and all the sand dropped out.

“As I tried to jump into the sentry post I found a metal rod from the GPMG tripod and pulled it round and hit him.”

As he ran towards the Taliban fighter he gave a shout of “Marchu Talai” Nepalese for “I’m going to kill you”.

No word on whether the brave jihadi wet himself as he ran off into the night.

Sgt. Pun was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross for his actions that night, Britain’s second-highest military honor. Somehow, I’d say he earned it.

Meanwhile, back at the Taliban camp, they’re probably still looking at each other and asking, “And they think we’re crazy?”

Moral of the story? Never, ever, tick off a Gurkha.

More at The Himalayan Times and The Blaze.

RELATED: Another Gurkha one-man-army.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


European Union to ban cars by 2050?

March 29, 2011

In order to fight a problem that does not exist, the monster under the bed anthropogenic global warming, the European Union is pushing to ban automobiles by 2050:

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a “single European transport area” aimed at enforcing “a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers” by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU’s list to cut climate change emissions is a target of “zero” for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU’s future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto “alternative” means of transport.

“That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres,” he said. “Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour.”

Not surprisingly, the Association of British Drivers has had a fit at the idea, calling it “economically disastrous” and “crazy.” While they’re right, that’s never stopped Green Statists in the past. I mean, what could be more desirable to their ethanol-fueled hearts than striking a blow against climate change (ignoring that it’s a natural process they cannot control) and at the same time constraining the individual liberty –in this case, the freedom of movement– of the citizen even more? I’m sure EUrocrats all over the Continent thrilled at the very idea.

And so did the buggy whip industry.

And thus we learn the Green Movement’s motto: Forward, into the past!!

via Pirate’s Cove

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“We will promote free choice by limiting free choice!”

March 28, 2011

If that doesn’t make sense to you, well, it doesn’t to me, either. It apparently makes some sort of sense to LA City Councilman Bernard Parks, however, who helped push through a ban on new fast-food businesses in two districts of south Los Angeles. Why? Well because there are too many fast-food places in that area already (in Parks’ view) and, by limiting the “overabundance,” they’ll encourage more sit-down restaurants with healthier food.

Yeah, that sounds like nanny-stater nonsense to me, too. And it did to the crew at Reason.TV, who went out and shot this short doumentary:

Parks’ logic fall apart on several grounds. First, if he wants more sit-down restaurants in those districts, then create the conditions that will encourage them to set up shop. They’re not staying away because there are too many McDonalds; they’re staying away because it’s a low-income area with a high crime rate, so the cost of business is too high for these chains. Improve the local economy, improve public safety, and you’ll find more “nice” places.

Second, what has Parks got against small business? These aren’t all McDonalds and Taco Bell. Many of the small fast-food joints are individual Mom-and-Pop small businesses that provide cheap, quick food at affordable prices to the locals. They also provide jobs for the down-on-their-luck who might not get hired by the chains. By blocking any more small fast-food businesses, Parks and the Council cut off a source of jobs for an area already suffering from at least 14% unemployment.

Finally, the nutrition angle is bunk. As the video shows, the “junk count” at chain sit-down restaurants can be as bad or worse than a fast food place. Conversely, fast-food operations like McDonalds have responded to free-market pressure and customer demand to offer healthier options. City intervention is heavy-handed, unneeded, and counterproductive.

The bottom line is that this is another case of some nannystater thinking he knows your business better than you yourself do.

With Los Angeles facing a fiscal train wreck and a sour economy, perhaps Councilman Parks should spend more time on things like the budget and public pensions reform, and less on what we Angelenos get to eat for lunch.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


If Islam can be reformed, it will come when women say “no more”

March 28, 2011

Women such as Veena Malik, a Pakistani entertainer who refuses to put up with some jackass mufti’s patronizing criticisms of her and instead tells him to go to Hell.

As they say, “you go, girl!”

I hope Veena has some bodyguards; she’s already received death threats from the brave knights of the religion of peace and misogyny for daring not to be a slave.

via Power Line


Amazing video of the Japanese tidal wave

March 27, 2011

I may have seen this one before, but, still, this is just incredible:

via Verum Serum


Sunday funnies: NewsBusted

March 27, 2011

The latest edition, starring Jodi Miller:


Gates: No vital US interests at stake in Libya

March 27, 2011

I’m not averse to the use of force in foreign affairs, in cases where it’s the best available option and clearly seen American interests are at stake.  I also am not against going “John Wayne” on a maniac dictator and helping his people be free of him when, again, demonstrable American interests align with the desire to give said maniac what he deserves. I argued, and still do, that Iraq presented such a case in 2002-2003.

Otherwise, in the absence of vital American interests, there seems little reason to commit American blood and treasure.

So what am I to think when, on national television, the Secretary of Defense says he can’t think of any vital American interests in Libya, where we’ve just gone to war?

As the war in Libya moves into its second week, tag-team Sunday talk show appearances by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State suggest the Obama administration remains divided over the fundamental question of whether the war is in the United States’ national interest.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gates was asked, “Is Libya in our vital interest as a country?”  He answered, “No, I don’t think it’s a vital interest for the U.S., but we clearly have interests there, and it’s a part of the region which is a vital interest for the U.S.”  Gates’ statement wasn’t an entirely convincing rationale for a major military commitment, and moderator David Gregory responded by saying, “I think a lot of people would hear that and say well, that’s quite striking — not in our vital interests and yet we’re committing military resources.”

Emphasis added.

In that case, Mr. Secretary, let me ask a question: In a time of national fiscal distress when we’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend and when we already have major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter involving frequent combat, why in Heaven’s name are we attacking Libya? If you and your boss can’t articulate a coherent reason for starting a war, what possessed you (and him) to think this would be a good idea?

And, no, “I dunno” doesn’t cut it.

Oh, but then acting-President and Secretary of State Clinton jumped in to offer a reason:

At that point, Clinton suggested that the U.S. went to war to repay NATO allies for support in Afghanistan.  “We asked our NATO allies to go into Afghanistan with us ten years ago,” she said.  “They have been there, and a lot of them have been there despite the fact that they were not attacked.  The attack came on us…They stuck with us.  When it comes to Libya, we started hearing from the UK, France, Italy, other of our NATO allies…This was in their vital national interest…

Emphasis added.

So, our European allies asked us to attack Libya because they went to war when we were attacked, so we agreed to bomb Libya because they were… Wait. Did I miss a Libyan raid on Naples or something??

Hey, I can see a vital interest for some European countries in Libya — they get quite a bit of oil from there, much more than we do. But that’s their vital interest, not ours. And al Qaeda’s attack on the US triggered the Article V mutual defense clause of the NATO treaty, which is in play in Libya… how, exactly?

Clinton’s “explanation” reminds me of this corker from her boss:

And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost.  It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally.  And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time.

And again, emphasis added.

What, did this all start because of a phone call from Europe? “Congratulations! We’ve just volunteered your military for a little war in Libya! And, hey, Barry, you owe us.”

I’m all for allies sticking together, but, if intervening in Libya is a vital European interest, maybe the European states should start spending the money to create the forces they would need to defend those vital interests and not “volunteer” us.

Meanwhile, someone needs to give the administration lessons in not sounding like clueless idiots.

LINKS: More at Hot Air

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Tough-talking Libyan psycho-family looking for a deal?

March 27, 2011

Remember, Dad promised to crush the rebels’ army, while his son (supposedly the reasonable one) said it would all be over in 48 hours.

So, why am I not surprised when news comes this morning that the lions of North Africa are secretly looking for a way out?

Independent Arab and Libyan sources have informed Asharq Al-Awsat that Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi is seeking to convince the coalition forces to accept a deal that is being secretly discussed between Gaddafi delegates and a number of Arab and American parties. This deal would see Gaddafi stepping down from power, only to be replaced by his son Saif al-Islam, with a deadline being put in place for a peaceful transition of power.

A well-informed Libyan source told Asharq Al-Awsat that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi has held a number of secret meetings with officials in the French and British governments, discussing the idea of his replacing his father for a transitional period of between 2 – 3 years, in return for a comprehensive ceasefire and negotiating with the anti-Gaddafi rebels.

The sources also revealed that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is pushing for assurances that Colonel Gaddafi and his family will be granted immunity from prosecution, and will not be legally punished in any manner.

The sources revealed that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi’s plan would see him take over control of Libya from his father during a transitional period during which Libya would transform from a revolutionary state to a democratic state that enjoys public and economic freedoms.

How convenient: “Sure, Dad will go, you leave me in charge, no prosecution for any of us for anything we did and, okay, I promise democracy and all that stuff. What do ya say?” And I’m sure this offer has nothing to do with the rebels regaining momentum and retaking towns under cover of NATO airstrikes.

Lest anyone be of a mind to grant these thugs immunity, here’s a reminder of how they treat their own people.

Sorry, Saif. The only deal you and your crackhead-in-drag father deserve is a choice of which lampposts the rebels hang you from.

Like I said before, once this action started there was no way these goons could be left anywhere near power.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Uncommon Knowledge: Stanley Kurtz

March 27, 2011

A while back I reviewed Stanley Kurtz’s latest book, Radical in Chief, a political biography of Barack Obama and a history of the evolution of American Socialism since the 1970s. It’s an important book, crucial to any real understanding both of the President, himself, and, indirectly, of how derelict the media was in their coverage of Obama’s background†.

Kurtz was recently interviewed by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution for their web program, Uncommon Knowledge. Here’s what they have to say about the subject:

Recent guest  Stanley Kurtz decided to do what the press failed to do – take an honest look at Obama’s politics.   His investigation resulted in Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. In this episode, Kurtz discusses the many socialist influences in Obama’s life, from his college years to his time as a community organizer, with men such as Bill Ayers, Frank Marshal Davis, and Jeremiah Wright.

In examining Obama’s main mentors, Kurtz begins to see a clear ideology that motivates the President’s disdain for the middle class, take-no-prisoners approach to passing socialized healthcare, reluctance to discuss political theory and desire for, ultimately, a socialist revolution.

The interview is a little over 30 minutes long. Get a cup of tea or coffee, sit back, and relax. I think you’ll find it worthwhile:

†Yeah, I know. They had much more important, world-shaking issues to deal with. Like Sarah Palin’s tanning bed.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama’s base awaits

March 27, 2011

Via The DiploMad:

Click to enlarge.

Y’know, I thought I saw a lot of these around the polling booth on election day in 2008. Hmm…


FDR in favor of Jewish quota laws?

March 25, 2011

It’s hard to say otherwise, given the source is official United States diplomatic records:

The document which Dr. Medoff sent me last week, concerning FDR and the Holocaust, was frankly shocking. It had to do with the Allies’ occupation of North Africa, which they liberated from the Nazis in November 1942. At the time, President Roosevelt publicly pledged the Allies would do away with the anti-Jewish laws that had been in force in the region. But when FDR met in Casablanca with local government leaders in January 1943, he took a very different line. The transcript of those discussions, which Dr. Medoff cites, reveals what FDR said about the status of the 330,000 Jews living in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia: “The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions (law, medicine, etc) should be definitely limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population…The President stated that his plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc., in Germany, were Jews.”

Hard to believe a president would say such a thing? Maybe, but the source is unimpeachable: the transcript appears in Foreign Relations of the United States, a multivolume series of historical documents published by the U.S. government itself. The Casablanca volume was published in 1968, but did not attract much notice at the time. Dr. Medoff has done a public service by bringing it to our attention again.

Emphasis added.

Fortunately, as the author of the article, former New York City mayor Ed Koch points out, the Allies didn’t follow FDR’s suggestion.

I realize Roosevelt held the prejudices common to his class, but the “…understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany…”? While at that very moment, Jews were being herded into camps, enslaved, gassed, massacred, and burned? Wow…

And don’t tell me he didn’t know.

Too bad Willkie lost.

via Power Line


A liberal explains the difference between Libya and Iraq

March 25, 2011

It’s simple! Obama is awesome!!

Makes perfect sense.

via Jonah Goldberg

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Gore: House GOP majority is like a new Dark Ages… or something

March 25, 2011

It’s a good thing our former Vice President and High Priest of Gaea isn’t into hyperbole and hysteria. Oh, wait…

Former Vice President Al Gore is asking Democratic activists to send donations to House Democrats’ campaign arm as a check on the “extreme elements in control of today’s Republican Party.”

“Not since the dark days of the Bush administration have we seen a Republican-controlled Congress that is so intent on pushing their agenda in Washington — protecting tax breaks for oil companies making record profits, attempting to roll back environmental regulations, and not only refusing to pass climate change legislation in any form but refusing to acknowledge that climate change even exists,” Gore wrote in a fundraising pitch for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

Yeah, that Renee Ellmers and John Boehner are part of a dangerous, fanatical crowd of ideologues; you can just see it in their eyes.

Sure, conservative groups send out hysterical emails, too, but they weren’t the ones sanctimoniously demanding a “new tone” in politics, either.

Of course, there’s a certain irony here, since, if Gore and his eco-loony acolytes have their way, we really will see “dark days” — from a lack of power.

via ST’s Hot Headlines


Andrew Klavan on the Mean Streets of Sesame Street

March 25, 2011

Following up on the Project Veritas videos exposing Progressive bigotry at NPR, Klavan on the Culture has conducted its own video sting revealing the shocking truth about an American institution: Sesame Street.

Elmo and Big Bird are statists? Say it ain’t so!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Palin on Libya and how one uses armed force

March 24, 2011

She was interviewed by Greta van Susteren last night; it’s worth watching.

Part One:

Part Two:

As we can see, the not-a-serious-and-can’t-win* potential candidate from Alaska has a far more coherent view on Libya and the employment of military force than anyone in the White House†.

But she’s the dummy.

via Ed Morrissey, who has some analysis.

*I’m being a wee bit sarcastic.

†She also has more intestinal fortitude than anyone at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


How The One screwed up in Libya: let VDH count the ways

March 24, 2011

Like most people outside the moonbat Left and isolationist Right, I supported the idea of intervening in Libya’s civil war, even though that support was qualified. And now that we’re in battle, my opinion is that we don’t stop until Qaddafi is gone; he’s too dangerous to leave behind, angry and vengeful.

But, well, Obama and his underlings have gone about this in about the most feckless, dunderheaded, and incompetent way possible. From dithering over getting involved until it was almost (and may still be) too late to stating goals that not only change, but are mutually exclusive, to coming up with the lame-brained idea of placing US forces under the command of an international committee of bureaucrats, this administration has done about everything one can think of to make sure it loses support for this kinetic military action war.

At National Review, Victor Davis Hanson enumerates the ways Obama is screwing this up. As with anything from VDH, read the whole thing, but here’s one in particular that stuck with me:

7) Leadership: This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both. A loud multilateral effort could be wise diplomacy, but not if it translates into a desire to subordinate American options and profile to European and international players that are not commensurately shouldering the burden — and not if all this is cynically used to advance a welcomed new unexceptional American profile.

When we talk of “European leadership,” we mean the U.K. and France, not Germany, Italy, or most of the EU. When we talk of the “Arab League,” we mean essentially zero military assets. And when we talk of the “U.N.,” we mean zero blue-helmeted troops. So, like it or not, there is a level of understandable cynicism that suspects Obama’s new paradigm of multilateral, international action is simply the same-old, same-old, albeit without the advantages that accrue when America is unapologetic about its leadership role, weathers the criticism, and insists on the options and prerogatives that a superpower must demand in war by virtue of its power and sacrifice.

And on this theme of leadership and American exceptionalism, let me point you to this article by Tony Katz at Pajamas Media. It goes to the heart of Obama’s Socialist “education” in New York and Chicago: that America is no better than any other nation, that the exercise of overwhelming American power is a problem — that, in the end, America herself is the problem:

[The report on human rights in the US to the UNHRC --pf.] was the “tell.” Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. America is no better, and no worse, than any other nation. So, in his estimation, why shouldn’t America be subject to the same “ruler on the knuckles” punishment as every other nation that abuses its people … like Libya?

These are the values that Obama holds dear, and they guide his decisions on every front.  While pundits and politicos were cackling about his trip to Brazil and South America, Obama kept along with seeing the sights, dancing in Rio, and staying away from press conferences.

For what reason would the president not go on his scheduled vacation trip?  The job of the president of the United States, as he sees it, is to be a willing, bowing cog in the world machine. To be morally unambiguous would be a slight to the ruling world order, the one that only multiculturalism brings.

Obama does not see the presidency, and himself in it, as the leader of the free world. Based upon the historical perspective, it is an impediment to a better world where all are equal. The president believes that America is the impediment to a safer, better world, just as he believes that “settlements” are the impediment to a safer, better Israel.

Emphases added. We can take this as part of the foundation on which all the errors VDH* lists are based.

*It truly is an unjust world, wherein an idiot like Barbara Boxer, and not Dr. Hanson, represents California in the Senate.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bachmann for President?

March 24, 2011

Color me less than thrilled:

CNN has exclusively learned that Rep. Michele Bachmann will form a presidential exploratory committee. The Minnesota Republican plans to file papers for the committee in early June, with an announcement likely around that same time.

But a source close to the congresswoman said that Bachmann could form the exploratory committee even earlier than June so that she could participate in early Republican presidential debates.

“She’s been telling everyone early summer,” the source told CNN regarding Bachmann’s planned June filing and announcement. But the source said that nothing is static.

“If you [debate sponsors] come to us and say, ‘To be in our debates, you have to have an exploratory committee,’ then we’ll say, ‘Okay, fine…I’ll go file the forms.’”

Three GOP presidential primary debates are planned before and during early June: The first one on May 2 at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California and another on May 5 in South Carolina. CNN plans a GOP presidential primary debate in New Hampshire in early June.

Meanwhile, CNN has also learned that Iowa Republican state Sen. Kent Sorenson will likely be hired to be Bachmann’s political director for the state – and that Bachmann aides hope to have a complete team together for Iowa by this weekend.

Sorenson is a prominent Tea Party figure in Iowa and holds sway with evangelicals in the state. He has publicly said he will support Bachmann if she mounts a presidential bid.

Don’t get me wrong; I like Michele Bachmann quite a bit. She represents an important voice on the Right of the Republican Party, she is an intelligent* advocate for low-tax/fiscally responsible/limited government principles,  and is becoming a force in the House of Representatives. She looks to have along career ahead of her as an important lawmaker, perhaps even moving on to the Senate to displace Klobuchar or Franken.

And that’s why I don’t like this news: nothing I’ve seen in her says “president” rather than “legislator.” It’s the difference between an executive’s “temperament” and that of a legislator, and Bachmann strikes me as a natural –and good– legislator.

Also, this has me worried that her House seat will be at risk. If she seriously runs for president, she won’t be able to run for reelection to the House. Unless there’s a quirk in Minnesota that allows simultaneous campaigns, of course, but then how seriously will anyone take her in either race when she’s running for both? Or, if the presidential campaign fizzles out after, say, six months, and she decides to run for reelection, will she have time to mount an effective campaign? Her seat was heavily targeted by the Democrats in 2010, and you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll go for it even harder if they think it’s an open seat.

And letting those progressive clowns take any seat is unacceptable.

Like Paul Ryan (R-WI), Bachmann is someone I’d like to see in the House for the next ten years, helping to craft important reforms to undo the damage the Democrats and Republican statists have done and fighting for the principles of limited government. And I’d hate for her to give up that seat at the table for what is at best a quixotic** run for higher office.

PS: To answer the obvious retort, “You’re a Palin backer and you’re afraid Bachmann will steal votes from your girl!”, ummm… yes and no. Yes, I’m a Palinista. But, no, that’s not why I dislike the idea of “Bachmann in 2012.” I’m generally of the “more the merrier” school for the early primaries, confident that the process will thin the herd down to the best candidates. Therefore, let everyone compete and present their ideas, and let voters decide. That includes Bachmann, but, as I outlined above, I don’t think it’s her best move at all.

*As are many conservative women in politics, who’ve been routinely slagged in the media for the occasional gaffe, while the faux-pas of liberal males get the silent treatment.

**Passing petty thought: This wouldn’t be a response to being passed over for a House leadership position in November, would it?

via Big Government

LINKS: More at Hot Air and Pirate’s Cove.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Band of (Illegal) Brothers?

March 23, 2011

Call it a gut feeling, but my hunch is that this odd incident is more a reflection of clever stupidity than anything menacing:

13 Illegal Immigrants Arrested in California Wearing U.S. Marine Uniforms

Border Patrol agents recently arrested 13 illegal immigrants disguised as U.S. Marines and riding in a fake military van, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday.

The illegal immigrants were clad in Marine uniforms when they were apprehended at the Campo Border Patrol Westbound I-8 checkpoint at 11 p.m. on March 14 near Pine Valley, Calif., border officials said. Two U.S. citizens in the van also were arrested.

Pine Valley is just east of San Diego.

Like I said, “clever.” There’s a big military presence around San Diego, and there are a lot of Hispanics in the military, so seeing a bunch of Hispanic US Marines being transported from one place to another wouldn’t be too odd.

But what was the “stupid” part, you ask?

The name labels on their uniforms all read “Perez.”

D’oh! 

via The Jawa Report, which has video.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Jordan conquers Israel!!

March 23, 2011

(Click the map to enlarge.)

Well, that’s what Egypt Air would evidently have you think, since they eliminated Israel from their web site’s map:

Egypt Air, the largest airline in Egypt, has removed Israel from the map – literally. On its website, Ynet has learned, Jordan’s land reaches the Mediterranean Sea.

The airline’s subsidiary, Air Sinai, flies to Israel regularly, but customers seeking flights to Ben Gurion National Airport will have a hard time finding them. On the map are the names of the Mideast capitals – Amman, Beirut, and Damascus – but Israel is nowhere to be found.

Both Lebanon and Jordan seem to have grown immensely, but where oh where did little Israel go? I know Ahmadinejad, promised to wipe Israel from the map, but I don’t think he meant it like this.

I’m sure this has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood gaining in influence in Egypt. Nah. Not at all… .

via Big Peace


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,853 other followers