LOL! Obama’s Climate Plan Spooks U.S. Democrats

August 27, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

I wonder when Senate Democrats will finally get it through their thick, obsequious heads that Obama doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss if they get reelected? This climate accord is the latest example of how, in Obama’s mind, Congress is an option, not a requirement when writing laws issuing ukases.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Yesterday we mentioned Obama’s nuclear option event, and now the fallout begins. |

From Timothy Cama and Scott Wong, The Hill
keep-calm-and-run-for-your-life-66[1]President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous.

The administration is in talks at the United Nations about a deal that would seek to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by “naming and shaming” governments that fail to take significant action.

The State Department on Wednesday denied a report in The New York Times that the plan is to come up with a treaty that would not require Senate confirmation, but that appeared to provide cold comfort to Democrats worried the issue will revive GOP cries about an imperial Obama presidency.

One Democratic strategist said the proposal would put swing-state candidates who are critical to the party keeping its Senate majority “in front of the firing squad.”

“You’re … making it more difficult for…

View original 439 more words


Well, we tried to warn them…

August 24, 2014

NY Daily News Obama golf cover

We really did. In 2008 and 2012, we on the Right tried to tell America that Obama was an empty suit, a man unqualified for the presidency. Lulled by a largely fawning media, not enough of the nation listened at either time, but now the scales are finally starting to fall from the eyes of the MSM itself. To set the stage, here’s Michael Goodwin in the New York Post:

Sometimes a round of golf is just a round of golf. And sometimes it reveals the ­essence of a man.

President Obama’s decision to hit the links and yuk it up with pals immediately after speaking about the beheading of James ­Foley was no ordinary mistake. Nor was it a simple gaffe.

The decision continues to cause an uproar because, like an X-ray, there is no escaping the image. It shows there is no there there.

With even his media praetorian guard appalled, the golf outing is sparking a wider understanding that Obama is hollow, empty of the routine qualities Americans expect from their president.

Simple decency and respect for Foley’s horrified parents should have been enough to sober him. If that didn’t do it, the realization that the Islamic State had declared war on America in the most gruesome fashion imaginable should have sounded a call of duty in his head.

Instead, Obama continued with his vacation and was photographed looking as if he didn’t have a care in the world. Suddenly, that megawatt smile that often charmed voters wasn’t so charming. It was vacuous.

He looked like an empty-headed frat boy, numb to the world.

Maybe that’s not just an appearance. Maybe it’s the truth. Maybe that’s all there is.

While Goodwin was never an Obama “true believer,” as I recall, what he wrote seems to be representative of a revelation taking place for journalists on the left (which is most), if the reactions of the liberal New York Daily News  (via) and MSNBC’s tingly Chris Matthews are any indication. It’s a shame it took nearly five years for the truth to finally start sinking in, however shallowly.

We tried to tell them.

h/t Power Line

PS: Yeah, I know. Give it a few days and they’ll be back to playing “praetorian guard” for Obama. And soon they’ll  transfer their ardor to another devotional object, in all likelihood Senator Elizabeth Warren. They never learn.


#ISIS: presidential gravitas in action

August 20, 2014
Leadership

Leadership

Unbelievable. This is how seriously Obama takes an Amerrican citizen being beheaded by Isis.

Actually, it’s sadly quite believable.


Impeachment: the Democrats’ briar-patch strategy

August 13, 2014

briar patch

You can tell the Democrats are desperately worried about the upcoming elections. How, you ask? Well, instead of running on their “accomplishments” –you know, Obamacare, the economy, foreign affairs, and other stunning successes (1)– the Democrats and their flacks in the MSM have running around with their hair on fire screaming that those radical, knuckle-dragging RAAAAACIST!!! Republicans are going to impeach President Obama. In fact, they’ve been fundraising like crazy off the idea.

Anyway, the latest barker in this carnival sideshow has been Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC):

and

That last is the key: with only a lousy record to run on, the Democrats have to resort to scare tactics to get their base motivated. The generic congressional ballot, a poll that measures party preference between “any Republican” and “any Democrat,” just looks bad for them (2). And if their core voters don’t get motivated and instead stay home, “bad” could easily turn to “God-awful.”

Hence the cries of “OMG! Impeachment alert!”

Now, mind you, Obama deserves impeachment and removal from office. Not only is he dangerously incompetent, but his contempt for our constitutional settlement risks doing grave damage to our political system. Not since Nixon, perhaps even in the history of our Republic, has there been a president who so richly merited it. I dare say I’d be willing to put up with “President Biden” (3), if I thought we could carry it off. It would at least provide a good reminder to future presidents that there are indeed limits to what they can get away with.

But it won’t work, not with Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, and probably not even after the Republicans (likely) takeover of the Senate in 2015. There’s just no way that we could command the two-thirds of the Senate needed for removal, absent Obama declaring himself emperor. And perhaps even then, given the Democrats’ loyalty to their party and their donors over their duty to the Constitution.

Also, we’re lacking an element that’s key to a successful presidential impeachment: broad public consensus that it needs to be done. Former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy has written an important book, Faithless Execution, detailing both the strong constitutional grounds for impeaching Obama and the need for the electorate’s agreement before that can be done successfully. If you’re going to overturn an election and reelection, the nation has to be onboard. Forcing a trial before the political spade work has been done will only roil the nation to no end, likely end in an acquittal that would be interpreted as vindicating Obama in his abuses, and probably turn large segments of the uncommitted middle away from the Republicans, whom they would blame for the turmoil, thanks to Obama’s praetorian guard in the media.

This would not be good for us in the coming elections; thus, it is exactly what the Democrats want. They are Br’er Rabbit and they want us to throw them in that briar patch.

Let’s not do Jim Clyburn any favors.

via The Hill

PS: I’ve described my preferred strategy here.

Footnotes:
(1) Insert sarcasm as needed.
(2) Democrats typically have a decent lead in that poll. When Republicans are roughly tied or have a lead, it’s considered a Very Bad Omen for the Donkey Party’s fortunes.
(3) As long as he promised not to touch anything.


Why Obama will do nothing about the border crisis

July 15, 2014
"Y'all come!"

“Y’all come!”

Per Bryon York:

First, because Republicans want him to do something:

Who is pushing Obama to get tough? Mostly, it’s the Republicans whose wishes Obama has ignored for years. And now, since his well-publicized decision to abandon hopes of making a deal with GOP lawmakers on immigration, Obama needs them even less. It’s to his political benefit to oppose them, not to do their bidding.

Second, because Democrats back him:

…the Democrats, who don’t strongly oppose action on the border but want the president to go forward only if Republicans will agree to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Without a grand bargain, these Democrats are not terribly bothered by Obama’s handling of the crisis. While a few border state Democrats like Reps. Henry Cuellar and Ron Barber express reservations about Obama’s performance, most won’t give the president any trouble.

Third, because the progressive media is cheering him on:

Next is the liberal commentariat, which supports Obama so strongly in this matter that it is actually pushing back against the idea that the border crisis is a crisis at all. “The besieged border is a myth,” the New York Times editorial page declared on Sunday. “Republicans are … stoking panic about a border under assault.”

And, finally, because Obama himself is simpatico with immigration “activists:”

Finally, there are the immigration activists who don’t want Obama to do anything that involves returning the immigrants to their home countries. “We’re in the midst of a humanitarian crisis affecting kids fleeing gang violence, extortion and rape,” Frank Sharry, of the immigration group America’s Voice, said recently. It is Obama’s responsibility, Sherry added, to find a way to settle “thousands of child refugees.”

Obama recently met with a group of those advocates. One of them later told the Washington Post that the president said to them, “In another life, I’d be on the other side of the table.” By that Obama meant that in his old days as a community organizer, pressing for the “refugee” rights would be just the sort of thing he would do.

In other words, all the incentives encourage him to ignore national interests and instead be true to his nature. He doesn’t have to worry ever again about reelection, and, if the Democrats are going to take a drubbing in the midterms, anyway, why not make his Leftist base happy?

There are those who argue that Obama’s actions have to be the result of incompetence, that no one would willingly do something so obviously self-destructive to their political fortunes. See, for example, Andrew Klavan’s essay at PJM, “Is Obama just a hapless putz?”, in which he argues that Cloward-Piven is an “idiot’s strategy.”

Perhaps, but one can still be idiotic enough to try it, with all the harmful effects that would follow.

Having read extensively on Obama’s political background, especially Kurtz’s crucial work, “Radical in Chief,” I’m not at all convinced that he cares about the fortunes of the Democratic Party (let alone the nation, or, frankly, those kids on the border), that he isn’t indeed willing to take a political hit in order to achieve what he and his leftist allies hope will be irreversible change. As with Obamacare, so with immigration. Whether Obama and his administration intended for this crisis on the border to occur, they’re quite happy to take advantage of it.

From his point of view, all the incentives work that way.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Romney on Iraq: “Our foreign policy is run by bumbling incompetents”

June 16, 2014

Okay, okay. Mitt didn’t really say that; I was just interpreting what I take to be the subtext of this interview with NBC’s David Gregory:

Via National Review, here’s the key passage:

“This administration, from Secretary Clinton to President Obama, has repeatedly underestimated the threats faced by America, has repeatedly underestimated our adversaries,” he said on Meet the Press. “Whether that’s Russia, or Assad, or ISIS, or al-Qaeda itself, it has not taken the action necessary to prevent bad things from happening; it has not used our influence to do what is necessary to protect our interests.”

Emphasis added. I think “repeatedly underestimated” is the typically nice, Romney-esque way of saying “bumbling incompetence,” don’t you?

The foreign crises we’re facing are no laughing matter, but a small part of me can’t help but hope Mitt is feeling some vindication; time and again, after being ridiculed in the campaign for being out of touch with our Brave New World of Smart Power, he’s been shown to be right, and the Obama team (including their MSM cheerleaders) spectacularly wrong.

I probably would have found myself at odds with “President Romney” fairly often over domestic issues, had he and Paul Ryan won, but I’ve always been impressed with Mitt’s solid grasp of America’s foreign interests and the challenges facing them, ever since I read his speech in Herzliya, Israel, in 2007. In a way and to a depth that President Obama and his “team of unicorns” never will, Mitt gets it. And I feel safe in saying he would not have made the boneheaded mistakes that are the hallmark of the current mis-administration.

It’s a shame he didn’t win.

PS: I haven’t written about the crisis in Iraq, yet, because I’m still processing what’s happening there. I’ll leave the instant commentary to people desperate to show this proves what they always believed and wanted to be true, whatever that happens to be. But I will say this: in 2009, George W. Bush, in spite of whatever mistakes his administration made from 2003-2009 in Iraq, left President Obama and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki a winnable situation; all they had to do was show prudence and wisdom. All they had to do was not screw it up.

Yet they both did just that. And I have no idea how this situation can be salvaged.

PPS: Remember the “purple finger woman” of 2005? I hope she’s alright.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Barack Obama: evil, or stupid?

June 8, 2014

Like the old IBM commercial for the NFL said, “You make the call!”

No matter what the scandal, Obama always seems not to know; he finds out about it in the morning news, like the rest of us. Fast and Furious, IRS-gate, the utter screw up of the Obamacare web site launch, you name it. His response is always an un-credible “I didn’t know.”

So, evil? Or stupid?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,109 other followers