The epitome of ‘denial’

September 7, 2014

Phineas Fahrquar:

From “climate change” to the fake “war on women” campaign, it amazes me that anyone takes Democratic candidates seriously, when they themselves refuse to address genuinely serious issues.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

Rick McKee, editorial cartoonist for the Augusta Chronicle, sends me this political cartoon about climate change which he posted on his Facebook page and the WUWT Facebook page.

It sums up perfectly what is wrong with our current political leadership: they are more worried about climate change than they are immediate threats with a clear and present danger.

Hillary-ISIS-denierSOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/rick.mckee?fref=photo

According to Breitbart, Hillary Clinton made the comments at a recent paid for speaking engagement in Las Vegas. I guess when you get that kind of money, you’ll say anything for hire.

The topic is explosive, not so much for the climate change part, but for the other two elements in it. Commenters should be be warned that we’ll snip any inappropriate comments.

View original


(Video) Andrew Klavan on “How to speak Leftist”

August 28, 2014

This could be an important series:

I hope he does “fairness” next; I’ve been trying to figure for years just what the heck the other side is talking about when they use that word.

Via.


Forget ISIS. The Fed is saving us from the horror of frosted cookies

August 22, 2014
I said, no fun allowed!

No cookies for you! Eat your kale chips!!

Well, thank God and Nanny State that someone is protecting Ohio’s children from the danger of… brace yourselves, friends… pink-frosted butter cookies!!!

Man, that was close:

New federal nutritional guidelines for school cafeterias has meant the end of a favorite — and locally famous — treat in one northeast Ohio school district.

The federal government’s edict to provide healthier foods and cut fats and cholesterol put an end of the sale of the traditional Elyria pink cookie — a buttery sweet treat with pink icing.

The pink cookie has been a favorite for four decades.

You know, with ISIS and Ukraine and Boko Haram and Chinese fighters buzzing our planes and a rotten economy and… so much else, it’s comforting to know that the United States government is saving us all from a bit too much fat in our diets.

Whew! smiley whew

The horror...

The horror…

News and photo via Jim Geraghty


Hillary Clinton, populist heroine

August 19, 2014

One of us?

One of us?

Via the Free Beacon, what says “woman of the people” more than demanding the presidential suite in the hotel of your choice as part of your speaking fees?

Documents for one of Clinton’s upcoming events reveal that she charges a whopping $300,000 speaking fee, requests 20 seats for guests picked by Clinton herself, a chartered Gulfstream 450 jet for round trip transportation for 16 people, and round trip business class seating for two of her staffers to check out the locale. Additionally, Clinton demands that a presidential hotel suite be booked for her and three adjoining rooms for her aides. Clinton also requests that her lead travel aide be given a $500 stipend and that meals, incidentals, and phone charges for Clinton and her aides be paid for by the host. A stenographer will be hired, but only Clinton will be given the transcript of her speech.

Hosts must agree that Clinton will not spend more than 90 minutes at the speaking engagement, that she will not pose for more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people (including her 20 guests) and the host is strictly forbidden from advertising the event as well as allowing press to cover the event.

Remember folks, she’s one of us. Why, she and Bill left the White House in 2001 darned near broke, which is probably why they could afford to buy only two mansions in swanky areas.

Just like the rest of us.

The former senator and secretary of state wants to be seen as understanding the struggles of everyday folks,  and she’s tried hard to show that common touch.

Which is kind of hard to do, when the hand you’re extending has a ring on it you expect to be kissed.


Gov. Perry indictment: when even David Axelrod says it looks weak…

August 16, 2014
"A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"

“A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict even a ham sandwich”

You might have heard yesterday that a Travis County, Texas, grand jury has indicted Governor Rick Perry for allegedly abusing his powers to try to force the Travis County DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, a convicted drunk driver, to resign.

This is the same “lawfare” strategy that’s been used in recent years to try to destroy the political careers of other Republicans: former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the late Senator Ted Stevens, and Wisconsin Governor Walker. (In Walker’s case, thankfully, it doesn’t seem to have worked.) I’m sure you can think of others.

The idea is to get charges in the media and drag out the “investigation” and court proceedings long enough to do the needed damage. The legal results don’t matter so much as the public traducing of the target. Even if cleared on all counts, the people will have been treated to months of allegations and rumors and denials, all meriting front page treatment, while the exoneration gets mere passing mention. In the mind of a cynical (but perhaps not cynical enough) public, all those charges must indicate the target was doing something wrong, right? We can’t vote for them, now, right?

But it may not work this time. When even one of President Obama’s closest advisers says publicly that the case looks weak, you know they’ve got problems:

“Sketchy” is being nice. It’s an utter BS charge, a perversion of the legal process designed to take down a strong potential 2016 candidate. The Governor was clearly acting within his authority under the Texas constitution, in this case vetoing money for the state’s Public Integrity Unit to force a personnel change: the removal of the convicted drunk driver District Attorney who heads the office.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed that this gets resolved quickly in Governor Perry’s favor.


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.


Iraq: Is Obama holding American citizens “hostage” to force Democrat support?

August 12, 2014
Liar.

Barack Machiavelli?

That’s the startling, even shocking implication of an article in today’s Free Beacon: that the President of the United States is refusing to evacuate American civilian personnel from Iraq, in spite of the crisis caused by the advance of ISIS, because he needs the threat to them to convince his left-wing base to go along with the air strikes underway:

The administration’s decision to bypass Congress before taking military action is reminiscent of its behavior in Libya, where air strikes also were authorized without congressional approval.

“They didn’t provide any firm answers or decisions,” said one senior Senate source apprised of the briefing. “The administration is saying that they’re going to authorize air strikes if ISIS gets close to U.S. personal or stationed personal, which in [our] mind, if there is a threat in the region you get your people out unless they’re military.”

This rationale from the White House is leading some to speculate that U.S. personnel in the region are being left in harms way “as collateral” because the Obama administration “can’t get his party and donor base to support further action in Iraq,” according to the source.

“That’s where a lot of the confusion is coming from” on Capitol Hill, the source added. “When there’s an imminent threat you get your civilian employees out of the region.”

As Noah Rothman at Hot Air points out, the administration is in a difficult spot with its legal justifications for action in Iraq: they’ve argued since the American withdrawal from Iraq that the Bush-era AUMF is outdated and should be repealed, so it’s very difficult to use that as a justification for new action. Instead, they’re using “danger to Americans” as the casus belli:

The White House appears to be claiming simply that the president has the constitutional authority to protect and defend American citizens, and he is legally empowered to execute strikes on ISIS targets if they present an immediate threat to U.S. interests or personnel. American military officials are, however, apparently prepared to interpret that which constitutes an “immediate threat” in a loose fashion.

And that, in turn has lead some to wonder if those personnel are being used as –and there’s no better word for it– hostages. I can almost see the pitch: “Look, we both agree that the Iraq War was stupid and wrong, but we can’t do nothing. You don’t want us to abandon Americans in danger, do you? The Republicans would have a field day with that. Remember how they reacted after Benghazi?”

It’s something so ruthless, so coldblooded, that I don’t want to believe it could be true of any American administration. Bear in mind also that the Free Beacon’s source is anonymous. And yet, on the other hand, the administration has taken such a hit over its failures in foreign policy, especially in the Mideast in the last two years, that some top adviser (Axelrod? Jarrett?) may have convinced the president he can do this to make sure he isn’t seen as the one who “lost Iraq” (newsflash: too late), that he can use the presence of Americans as leverage against a rebellion by his base without too much risk. If there’s one place this generally incompetent administration has shown any competence at all, its in “base politics.”

And, if true, this would be pretty base.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,289 other followers