Democrats’ “Look it’s Elvis!” strategy not playing on Main Street?

April 14, 2014
"Don't get distracted"

“Don’t get distracted”

The Democrats would really rather you talk about anything other than Obamacare, which has become a huge millstone around the neck of their political fortunes (1). To distract you from this anti-constitutional monstrosity and rally their base voters, they’re desperately deploying the weapons that have served them so well in the past, such as the Race Card.

Another weapon is the “War on Women,” the accusation that, in short, Republicans and conservatives want women barefoot, pregnant, and underpaid, shouting that women only earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. (2) There’s no denying that the “Sexism Card” was effective in the 2012 election, but how is it working for them, now?

If a Pittsburgh waitress is any indicator, not so good:

She gave a dramatic eye-roll in reaction to all of the fuss that Democrats and the president attempted to create over equal pay for women last week.

A Democrat herself, she said she has carved out a decent, comfortable life for her family over the years as a waitress at a local restaurant.

“I am in many ways my own boss,” she explained. “It is up to me to get the order right, treat people well, and use my personal skills to increase my wages.”

And she is “sick and tired of my party treating me like a victim. This is not 1970, and it’s insulting.”

Her last remark is telling. Progressives have long dreamed of instituting nationalized health care in the US, but the ACA’s passage was controversial (to say the least), the bill has never been popular, and it’s rollout to date has been a train wreck. Now faced with an electoral shellacking potentially worse than 2010′s, they’ve gone back to their happy place in the 1960s and whipped out the magic fetishes that have always saved them before: cries of racism, sexism, and class warfare.

Only, as the astute waitress observed, what worked 40-50 years ago doesn’t necessarily work now. American society has made enormous progress on issues of unfair treatment based on gender or race, and only an ideologue or a charlatan –or a desperate pol (or, in this case, all three)– would claim otherwise.

Remember what Lincoln said?

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

The Democrats have been able to fool enough of the people, but, at some point, people get tired of being taken for fools. They notice how dog-eared those cards in the Democrats’ deck have become from being played so often and they’re not impressed anymore. In fact, as our waitress noted, they’re insulted. And insulted people take their business (and votes) elsewhere.

More from the article:

Barack Obama has divided this country since the beginning of his presidency. He has not been transformative; instead, he has indulged one special-interest group after another — women in this case, but also blacks, young people, the lesbian-gay-transgender community and Hispanics in earlier instances.

He has governed by sliced-and-diced division, fear, secrecy and resentment, all accented with toothless executive orders used as political weapons.

This is definitely not the transparent and compassionate administration that he promised.

Maybe this is what happens when you over-promise, or maybe this is who Barack Obama is.

Or the answer is “C,” both. Obama and the Democrats clearly over-promised to win over a public tired by war and frightened by an economic crisis, but it is also who Obama is: a political “slice-and-dicer.” Remember that Obama got his start and his education in retail politics as a community organizer, a profession invented by Saul Alinsky. The whole point of community organizing is not to unite or build bridges, but to divide communities into “us and them” and then organize your faction to achieve your goal by setting them against the other guys. Thus no one should be surprised that Obama has operated this way over the course of his presidency.

It’s who he is and all he knows.

PS: The article’s author, Salena Zito, is a great reporter who looks at politics from a “Main St.” perspective, the point of view of the people the Beltway often forgets exist. You should add her to your reading list.

RELATED: John Fund on the race card as a losing game.

Footnotes:
(1) And deservedly so.
(2) And even though even the White House admitted that was wrong.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Tell me again why you’d vote to reelect Obama?

January 27, 2012

When he has a record like this?

America Before President Obama Took Office and Now

  Before Now Change
Number of Unemployed1 12.0 Million 13.1 Million +9%
Long-Term Unemployed2 2.7 Million 5.6 Million +107%
Unemployment Rate3 7.8% 8.5% +9%
“High Unemployment” States4 22 43 +95%
Misery Index5 7.83 11.46 +46%
Price of Gas6 $1.85 $3.39 +83%
“Typical” Monthly Family Food Cost7 $974 $1,013 +4%
Median Value of Single-Family Home8 $196,600 $169,100 -14%
Rate of Mortgage Delinquencies9 6.62% 10.23% +55%
U.S. National Debt10 $10.6 Trillion $15.2 Trillion +43%

Source: House Ways and Means Committee (1)

The only reasons I can think of for voting to reelect this miserable Socialist failure are:

  • One actually likes what Obama is doing and believes these trends are a necessary price to pay to transform the nation and that “more cowbell” is the solution. In other words, a progressive;
  • One is addicted;
  • One is simply ignorant.

Forget Obama’s disastrous energy policies that will beggar the poor and the middle classes; forget his topsy-turvy foreign policy that slaps friends, hugs enemies, and makes the world a more dangerous place; forget his arrogance and his contempt for the Constitution, adherence to which is at the heart of our common bargain.

And forget that you’re unhappy with the Massachusetts Moderate, the Angry Muffin, or Mr. Sweater Vest, based on what they might do in office.

Forget all that.

Looking at the numbers above, which represent the president’s record, tell me how could any rational voter who cares about the fate of the United States of America and, indeed, the future of the world make a positive case to vote to reelect Barack Obama?

Well?

via Joel Pollak (2)

UPDATE: Argh, the table didn’t format right. Danged inflexible columns. To see the percentages, follow the committee link above.

UPDATE II: And here’s a nice graphic courtesy of Pirate’s Cove that further illustrates the point:

Heckuva job, Barry!

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, a Republican-controlled committee. So what? Statistics can be manipulated. And? Show me how those numbers are wrong.
(2) Who tried to unseat “Red” Jan Schakowsky in 2010 and is considering running again. Go, Joel!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Video: Three years under Barack Obama

December 26, 2011

Well, Christmas is past (1) and it’s time to get back to politics. But easily, gently, because New Year’s is still to come (2).

So what better way to do that than a year-end episode of Bill Whittle’s Afterburner? In this edition, Bill recounts the last three years under President Barack Obama (and two of those under near-total progressive rule) and reminds us that, in 2012, it’s time to get down to work and get rid of the worst president of the last 100 years:

(There may be a commercial at the start. Sorry. The Google Empire just couldn’t resist.)

Footnotes:
(1) I hope all y’all had a great one.
(2) And then the Iowa caucuses. But we won’t think about that, right now. It makes my head hurt.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The kind of lies an immature, narcissistic president tells

October 23, 2011

"Tell me you love me!"

Oh, please. Don’t insult my intelligence:

Every night before he goes to sleep, the president of the United States reads 10 letters from the pile of 20,000 sent to him by Americans every day. Sometimes, he writes back. He’s even, on occasion, included a check.

“It’s not something I should advertise, but it has happened,” President Barack Obama told reporter Eli Saslow, author of the new book, “Ten Letters: The Stories Americans Tell Their President.”

I’m not sure what the bigger whopper is here: that Obama plays “secret Santa” to some of the poor, downtrodden folks in danger of losing their homes or with medical bills they can’t pay, or that a guy with an ego the size of the Grand Canyon is reluctant to talk about it.

Consider the first choice. Are you really going to tell me these people have received personal checks from the President of the United States and have stayed quiet about it? They didn’t tell their relatives? They and their relatives didn’t tell the local news? No one at the bank who cashed the check told anyone “Hey, I just cashed a check from Obama?” Word never got to the national news networks, who’d love to carry a feel-good story about their God-King?

Everyone stayed mum?

Sure. Uh-huh. I buy that. How much for the bridge, too? 

Or how about the next one, that he’s reluctant to talk about it? Barack Obama, humble? Reluctant to take credit? The man who shunned the Democratic convention hall so he could make his acceptance speech in an outdoor arena before Grecian columns, like some demigod? The man who couldn’t be bothered to appear in person at ceremonies commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall, but sent  a video message that focused on him? Who’s famously thin-skinned about criticism and makes almost every speech on himself? Who’s sure he’s made all the right choices? Who had to have a star-studded White House birthday party –including a conga line– while the economy is still in a tank??

This Barack Obama, who probably has narcissistic personality disorder?

Yeah, you bet. And unicorns are real, too.

Look, if this turns out to be true –that Obama sent checks, not just wrote back– I’ll admit my error and apologize.

But I just don’t believe it; I think the man is lying and that his childish need for ego-stroking made him do it.

via Clarice Feldman

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Obama presidency, by the numbers

October 3, 2011

"I'm just getting started!"

If a picture is worth a thousand words, this graphic that compares the Obama administration’s promises and claims to reality after nearly three years of hope and change is worth a million.

Just click the link.

via Moe Lane


Obama: a billionaire should pay the same tax rate as a Jew?

September 26, 2011

Don’t look at me like that. That’s what the man said:

In fairness, he meant to say “janitor,” not “Jew,” and immediately corrected himself. Still, it’s an interesting mistake to make, given that he spent 20 years in the church of a racist, antisemitic pastor.

Perhaps his Freudian slip was showing?

via Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Yo, B! Balance the [bleep!] budget!

August 20, 2011

Okay, the usual warnings: NSFW, lots of bad language, F-bombs galore.

That said, this is screamingly funny:

I think I’ve found a new hero, yo!

via Dan Mitchell, who has some related, worthwhile non-F-bomb video links.


Klavan on the Culture presents “Talking Crap 3: Absolute Crap!

August 14, 2011

Yes, it’s time once again for America’s favorite show, in which Andrew Klavan takes President Obama’s rhetoric and reveals it for what it is — absolute crap.

Can’t wait for the director’s cut! 

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I’ve never believed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” nonsense, but…

August 11, 2011

He is either appallingly naive about the religion or is doing his usual “say anything they need to hear to like me” act. Regardless, the kind of meaningless pabulum he served at the White House Iftar dinner last night is just jaw-dropping:

Welcoming guests at the annual White House Iftaar party, US President Barack Obama said, Islam has always been part of the American family and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country in all walks of life.

Attended by some 100 special invited guests including ambassadors of mostly Muslim countries and eminent Muslim academicians and community leaders, Akram Syed of the National Association of Indian Muslims was among the few Indian-Americans to attend the high-profile annual event at the White House.

Other special guests included families of Muslim victims of the 9/11 attacks, as well as Muslim members of the US Armed Services.

Obama said the annual Ramadan dinner, a tradition that President Clinton began and President George W Bush continued, is quintessentially American.

“No matter who we are or how we pray, we’re all children of a loving God,” he said.

Tell that to the Copts in Egypt, Mr. President. And that’s just one example of the nearly 1,400-year legacy of Islam’s jihad against everyone else.

That quote is just the start. For more, and for a detailed deconstruction of the President’s blather, visit Jihad Watch.

PS: To clarify, I am not questioning the loyalty of Americans who practice Islam but who don’t seek to impose Sharia law here or wage jihad against the United States, and I especially do not question the loyalty and honor of the many Muslims who have served and do serve in the military. It is with Islam itself and its doctrines of (to name a few) jihad, Jew-hatred, female inferiority, enmity toward the outsider, and the supremacy of Sharia that I have deep problems.

PPS: Regarding Obama’s religious beliefs, if he has any, in my opinion he is most attracted to the Black Liberation Theology preached by James Cone, Cornel West, and Jeremiah Wright. (Although I’m not above believing that his time in Wright’s church was wholly cynical, and that Obama’s only real “religion” is himself.)

via Weasel Zippers, which has video.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Leadership the Obama Way, then and now

July 31, 2011

Via Hot Air, here’s a commercial that will run in several markets to showcase Barack Obama’s rather… “flexible” positions on America’s debt:

And be sure to have a look at this Byron York article on the Democrats and the debt ceiling, which shows what partisan weasels(1) Reid, Durbin, and Obama have been.

Footnotes:
(1) Which fits with their behavior as sleazy, cheap, partisan weasels on the Iraq War, too. At least they’re consistent.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


President Pouty-Face

July 14, 2011

Great Seal of the Pouter in Chief

By now I’m sure you’ve all heard about how President Barack Obama –Chief of State, Chief Executive, and Commander in Chief of the United States of America– got upset in a meeting with House Majority Leader Cantor and stormed out in a huff, because he wasn’t getting his way. But do take note of the highlighted portion:

The Majority Leader recounted that toward the end of the discussions President Obama instructed negotiators to “get in the mode” because a final decision would have to be made by Friday. Cantor said he told the president that the two sides remain so far apart at this point that he doubted they could get to $2.5 trillion in cuts (to match the debt increase requested by the administration, enough to get through the 2012 election) given the time available. President Obama has said he will not sign any increase to the debt ceiling less than that amount, and Cantor had previously insisted that the House would vote no more than one time to increase the debt limit. Cantor said he was willing to abandon his position in order to allow some kind of short-term measure to increase the debt limit and reassure credit markets while negotiations continue, and asked the president if he would be willing to consider this option.

At this point, Cantor explained, the president became “very agitated” and said he had “sat here long enough,” that “Ronald Reagan wouldn’t sit here like this” and “something’s got to give.” Obama then told Republicans they either needed to compromise on their insistence on a dollar for dollar ratio of spending cuts to debt increase or agree to a “grand bargain” including massive tax increases. Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.” He then “shoved back” and said “I’ll see you tomorrow.”

“Don’t call my bluff?” Isn’t that telling Cantor that, y’know, you’re bluffing?

Mr. President, buddy, if you ever hold a poker game… invite me! 

More seriously, this says something about the character of the man in the Oval Office. Remember how, way back in 2007-08, we were told of his world class temperament, how he was “No-Drama Obama?” Or, more recently, how he’s claimed to be the “adult in the room?”

Sounds like someone doesn’t want to eat his peas.

In an update to the article, Andrew Stiles presents the Democrats side of the story, claiming that the Republicans were just “spinning.” But I wonder…

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen Obama get huffy and petulant when challenged. Remember this interview in Texas? Or the archetypal “Why can’t I just eat my waffle” moment? Or this moment of glory for Captain Cool from the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009:

According to rumors in the Bella Center, US President Barack Obama at about 11 PM, had impatiently asked to speak with Wen Jiabao in order to advance the discussion. But Obama had to wait. Wen, who, it was rumored, had rarely left his hotel room, could not be found. Finally, the US delegation located him in a room set aside for negotiations. A visibly furious Obama, according to reports, stormed into the room. “Are you now ready to talk with me, Premier Wen?” he was reported to have shouted. “Are you now ready? Premier Wen, are you now ready to talk with me?” What a scene for a US president.

Far from having a world-class temperament, it appears he has a world-class temper and has trouble controlling it.

It’s hard to avoid concluding that, in the most basic sense of the word, Obama is “immature.” That is, untested, undeveloped, and lacking in experiences that would give him the emotional and character tools needed to handle the challenges of his job.

Remember, prior to becoming president, he had never held an executive job or other post with command responsibility in his life. Even as a state legislator, he mostly voted “present,” thus not taking responsibility. In the board positions he filled, his job was to hand out other people’s money, but he was never held to account for the results of that spending and he never had to make tough choices about spending priorities.

This is a man who, in my estimation, skated by until now on his charm, good looks, and the need of White leftists and liberals to assuage their guilt. For the first time in his life and in a time of crisis, Barack Obama is being held responsible for his poor decisions; for the first time in his life, he isn’t being allowed to vote “present;” and, for the first time in his life, he is being told “no.” He doesn’t like it, not a bit.

And so he throws a tantrum.

For all his faults, George W. Bush as president took responsibility for his duties and his actions. He really was the “adult in the room.”

Now, with Barack Obama, we instead have a sulking man-child.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Advice for President Obama: be Warren Harding, not Franklin Roosevelt

July 12, 2011

Never did I think I’d favorably mention President Harding twice in a blog, but here you go. The first was a quote from Harding, while what follows is a quote about Harding:

I know, the thought Obama could be half the president Harding was is too much to ask.

Considering Harding is one of the most reviled 20th-century presidents (among those who even remember him), that statement could be easily taken as an insult to Obama by ironic comparison to (another) president who was truly awful.

Far from it. Historian Steven Hayward looks at the misperceptions regarding Harding that have become commonplace thanks to liberal academia and argues that our 29th president is someone Obama should seek to emulate, at least in economic policy. Faced with a genuine economic depression, runaway inflation, and a huge government debt after World War One, Harding did things that would give statists nightmares:

So what did Harding do?  A “stimulus”?  A jobs program?  “Targeted” tax cuts?  Government bailouts for ailing companies?  Nope—he cut government spending sharply and rapidly (by almost 50 percent), began cutting tax rates across the board, and allowed asset values and wages to adjust freely as fast as possible.  Harding’s administration, Paul Johnson observed, “was the last time a major industrial power treated a recession by classic laissez-faire methods, allowing wages to fall to their natural level . . .  By July 1921 it was all over and the economy was booming again.”  The Cato Institute’s Jim Powell offers a more complete summary of Harding’s soundness on economic policy, but suffice it to say that Harding’s traditional approach prevented the depression of 1920-21 from becoming a Great Depression, and in fact set he stage for the roaring twenties.

Of course, what would give Keynesians and other statists those nightmares is that –The Horror!!– it worked, while the interventionist, centrally directed policies of Hoover and FDR (1) failed miserably.

So, come on Mr. President, I dare you: Be like Warren.

Just don’t let Michelle catch you in the closet.

Footnote:
(1) Yes, Hoover has been unfairly slagged by FDR hagiographers who needed a whipping boy to make their guy look good. The fact is, Hoover was a bad president in the early years of the Great Depression, but not for being the anti-FDR. Check out Hayward’s post for a revealing quote from Rex Tugwell, one of FDR key early aides, about how the New Deal was an amplification of Hoover’s policies.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Quote of the day: Sarah Palin edition

July 10, 2011

From her Facebook page:

It’s a matter of public record that I did not go to Harvard Law School, but I can add.

That’ll leave a mark.

Be sure to read the whole thing to see how she tears into Obama for his incompetent leadership, his refusal to face facts, and his blind devotion to Keynesianism: The Sugar Daddy Has Run Out of Sugar.

Nightstick. Boom.

UPDATE: And take a look at the forthcoming cover of Newsweek. (h/t Melissa Clouthier)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Klavan on the Culture: Paul Ryan vs Barack Obama — link fixed!

June 17, 2011

It’s on:

UPDATE: Hmmm… This video is suddenly not available, locked up by the uploader. That would be Pajamas Media. I’m willing to bet that’s because of a certain joke at the end that oversensitive types might take wrong. Guess we’ll know if a revised video takes its place. Sorry for the inconvenience, folks.

UPDATE II: We have a new link, thanks to LarryG in the comments. Not sure why the original was pulled, as there’s no revision I can see. Regardless, enjoy. 

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bill Whittle: Obama is making us a “turncoat nation”

May 27, 2011

Bill Whittle returns today with a video that absolutely savages the “Smart Diplomacy” of Barack Obama and his administration. Noting that it takes years and decades of efforts to build up trust between nations, Whittle shows with devastating clarity how, one by one, Obama is trashing those relationships and, in the process, harming our national security and turning us into a nation of turncoats:

Two things from the video I’ll point out: first, I had a feeling Bill was a big fan of Victor Davis Hanson. I am, too, and I can’t recommend his books highly enough, whether you’re interested in Military History, Ancient Greece, the decline of California, or current affairs in general. Hanson has a way of using the past to illuminate the present that few can match. Whittle points to one of his books, How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security, part of the Encounter Broadsides series. Not only do I second Bill’s recommendation of Hanson’s book, but I’m a fan of the entire series. They’re inexpensive, brief polemical works on important issues that will give you the arguments you need to deal with liberal co-workers and friends.

The other item Bill mentions is the stab-in-the-back betrayal of Poland and the Czech Republic in 2009 after they stuck their necks out for us by agreeing to host missile defense sites over strenuous Russian objections. At the time I was outraged and called it “appeasement and betrayal,” and my opinions haven’t changed. Barack Obama’s, amateurish, ham-handed, and ideologically driven foreign policy is wrecking America’s traditional alliances and gaining nothing –nothing– in return.

At this point, I don’t care if the Republican nominee in 2012 is Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, John Huntsman — or even Alf! We have got to vote him out of office.

RELATED: Two good articles you may want to look at. In the first, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy describes Obama’s Middle East policy as “ObamaCare for Israel.” It’s an apt analogy, and McCarthy uses it as an example of Obama’s Alinskyism as applied to foreign relations. After that, check out Stanley Kurtz’s article on Obama’s hard-Left leanings in foreign policy: “Pro-Palestinian-in-Chief.” Kurtz wrote the brilliant Radical in Chief, a political biography of Obama chronicling his lifelong attachment to Socialism. The book discussed the implications of Obama’s radical Leftist politics for domestic policy; “Pro-Palestinian” can be considered a companion piece for foreign affairs.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Future leaders compared

May 25, 2011

‘Nuff said?

Bibi and Barack

via Christian Adams

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bill Whittle: mythbusting Bush, bin Laden, and Obama

May 13, 2011

Ideas that seem to rise from nowhere and take on a life of their own are often called “memes.” They’re those things that “everyone knows,” but they often fall apart when looked at critically. Anthropogenic global warming is one such false meme, but that’s not the topic for today.

Instead, Bill Whittle looks at several memes associated with the The Long War(1) –”mission accomplished,” and “Iraq was a distraction,” among others– and then smashes them to bits with the Hammer of Facts:

It’s like a current-affairs version of MythBusters.

There’s an old saying that, while we are entitled to our own beliefs, we are not entitled to our own facts, and Bill does a great job using fact to skewer false belief.

(1) My preferred name for this conflict, or maybe “Jihadi War.” “War on Terror” just never sounded accurate.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Death to What’s-His-Name!

May 10, 2011

Yeah, I’d say it kind of spoils your big moment on TV when you pronounce death on the President of the United States … and can’t remember his name:

More seriously, while this is the usual (and not all that well done) condemnation of the Great Satan for killing a noble mujahideen (and sociopathic mass-murderer), note Sheikh Sa’id’s justification: that Obama is a Muslim who has left the faith and therefore, as an apostate, must die:

“Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” –Bukhari 9:83:37

This just goes to show that the “Obama is a Muslim” myth(1) has spread far and wide, even to faraway Sudan, and will probably never die. But I can see where Sa’id is coming from: Obama’s father was a (non-practicing) Muslim and, under Islamic law, if you are born to a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. (Daniel Pipes has a good discussion of this.) Practicing Islam doesn’t make a difference, so, in Sa’id’s view, it’s not unreasonable(2) to accuse Obama of being a murtadd — an apostate. That modern Christianity largely sees membership as a matter of some form of baptism and active profession of faith doesn’t matter; after all, as it says in the Qur’an, Christians are the ones who have “gone astray.”(3)

So… Death to What’s-his-name!

(1) For what it’s worth, I’ve never bought into that; it’s just a variant on the “Manchurian Candidate” meme. If Obama is drawn to any religion, its the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, which meshes well with Obama’s Socialist politics.

(2) To a totalitarian mind straight out of the Middle Ages, that is.

(3) That passage is generally interpreted to mean the Jews (“…those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down…”) and the Christians (“…those who go astray.”)

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Obama won’t tell Holder to back off on his CIA witch hunt

May 6, 2011

Remember, these are the same people who got the initial leads to the courier who eventually lead us to bin Laden. And yet, as reported in this interview with Debra Burlingame, Obama has said that he will not tell Attorney General Eric Holder to end his investigation persecution of these CIA operatives — nor will he even talk to Holder about it:

Utterly disgraceful. “Thanks for leading us to bin Laden, guys. Here’s your reward: possible prosecution. Better start paying some lawyers a retainer. Hope you have enough savings.”

Granted, the position of the Attorney General is unique in the Cabinet: a president should never attempt to interfere in an ongoing case or use the Justice Department to go after foes or favor cronies. That’s the dread “politicization.’ President Bush’s last AG, Michael Mukasey, was very strict about that.

But these are investigations that should never have been undertaken in the first place. The interrogators in question had already been cleared of wrongdoing by career attorneys in the Justice Department. There was no reason to reopen the case, but Holder did anyway — and don’t tell me it wasn’t with Obama’s approval.

This case already stinks to Heaven-on-high of politicization meant to appease Obama’s anti-war, anti-CIA, and anti-American base. Dropping it would be doing no less than justice, something that’s been missing at the Department of Justice for nearly three years, now.

And think about the national security implications: After 9-11, we were desperate to get a lead on the people who had attacked us. DoJ lawyers at the time drew up guidelines for how prisoners could be interrogated, including the circumstances under which waterboarding was appropriate. The interrogators –who were trying to keep any more of us from being killed– acted in good faith under those guidelines. And they succeeded. To tell them that they are still vulnerable to criminal liability is to tell any future CIA (or other US official) that they, too, might be investigated and prosecuted at some future date, regardless of what they were told at the time. Just how effectively do you think they’ll do their job with that hanging over their heads?

These men and women should be given thanks, not the back of the hand.

ADDENDUM: No, I don’t think waterboarding is torture. Neither does Marc Thiessen, who wrote a great book on how Obama is courting disaster. But, even if it is torture, Charles Krauthammer writes that there are times when it is the lesser evil. And, to be honest, I’m still glad they did it. And yes, I’ve changed my thinking about whether waterboarding is torture. So there.

LINKS: Linda Chavez thinks the interrogators should be rewarded, not punished. Power Line is puzzled. Europe can’t resist its post-modern dementia and is starting to talk about “war crimes” in the assassination of bin Laden. And the UN, God love’em, wants details on the raid to make sure it was all legal. You can guess my opinion of the UN and its request.

EDIT: Updated to fix an errant link, 2/3/2013

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


After ten years, we got him!

May 1, 2011

(People offended by foul language should click away, now.)

Hello, I am now blowing goats in Hell.

President Obama announced tonight something that any American with a pulse has prayed for, for nearly ten years:

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD, AND WE KILLED THE SON OF A BITCH!!

For some reason, the President’s statement is not up on the White House web site’s front page, but here’s FOX on the event:

Usama bin Laden is dead, putting an end to the worldwide manhunt that began nearly a decade ago on Sept. 11, 2001. The architect of the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil was killed a week ago inside Pakistan by a U.S. bomb.

President Obama announced the stunning development during an address to the nation late Sunday night from the White House.

“Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Usama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda.”

And, according to Obama’s address to the nation, this was a ground operation: that means someone pointed the muzzle of a rifle at Osama and shot his goat-fucking ass to Hell. Give that man (or, God, I wish, a woman) a medal.

And, God in Heaven forgive me, I hope bin Laden suffered. I hope he called out to Allah and cried for his mother and shit his pants in fear… And then realized how hopeless it all was.

Oh, and the assault took place in Abbotabad, deep inside Pakistan, which means the Pakistani ISI knew all along where this lunatic medieval fuck was and refused to tell us. Guess what, bitches? We didn’t need you. In fact, we didn’t tell you about the operation until it was over. Take that and shove it up your double-dealing asses!

Politics is suspended until tomorrow. For now, congratulations to President Obama for ordering the operation, and all praise to the US operatives who carried this out at unimaginable risk to their own lives. As Ronald Reagan said, and Osama bin Laden learned tonight, “you can run, but you can’t hide.”

Oh, and you fucking jihadi shits who think you’re doing Allah’s work taking down Western civilization? Guess what?

We. Have. His. Body. No Islamic burial.

You’ve just been pwned, you Dark Ages pussies.

God, this feels good!

AFTERTHOUGHT: Yes, I know this is Obama’s night and he deserves praise for ordering the operation, but no small part of me wishes George W. Bush, after all he had been through, had had the chance to make this announcement himself. He earned it.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,164 other followers