Oh, my. What a coincidence.
The Chinese Communist government is responsible for the deaths of roughly 50-60 million of its own people, thanks to its brutal rule and economic incompetence. (For example, the so-called Great Leap Forward of 1958-61 was officially estimated to have killed 14 million.) This is also a regime that wickedly cracked down on pro-democracy demonstrators in the Tiananmen massacre of 1989. (An event approved of by President Obama’s first nominee to head the National Intelligence Council.)
So, naturally, New York is set to honor the 60th anniversary of this monstrous dictatorship by bathing the Empire State Building in red and yellow light, the national colors of China:
It was bad enough seeing school children sing praises to President Obama as if he were some leftover Stalinist dictator, but when you have groups praying to him in a weird mockery of the Catholic liturgy, you’ve entered the realm of the grotesque:
Is the democratic spirit that weak on the Left, that they need god-kings?
Maybe they should learn this song, next:
(hat tip: Hot Air)
UPDATE: Ed at the Hot Air link above is a little unsure if they’re saying “Obama” or “Oh God.” Of course, that could be one and the same to them.
EDIT: Updated 8/17/2012 to clean up some categories and eliminate tags.
For a blatant political commercial from my candidate for US Senate, California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-70):
Chuck’s a smart, sharp leader who holds to the right (and Right) principles on energy, taxes, fiscal policy, the economy, and integrity. We’ve suffered long enough with Barbara “Check Bouncer” Boxer in office; it’s time she herself was bounced.
You can learn more about Assemblyman DeVore here.
So now the detainees at Guantanamo Bay aren’t jihadis, they’re not terrorists, they’re not Islamists … they’re not even “detainees.”
No, they’re refugees. I’m not kidding.
Then again, what else would you expect from an administration that refers to a war as an “overseas contingency operation?”
What’s a good euphemism for “losers?”
But… But… The Left and the media (and some Republican snobs) told us Sarah Palin didn’t know what she was talking about, that she should leave the room, for her metaphorical reference to health care rationing creating “death panels.” Even the President went after her:
Still, given all the misinformation that’s been spread over the past few months, I realize — I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight, I want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.
Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.
Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie plain and simple.
Maybe they should have asked the Australians:
Nicola Roxon … is the health minister of Australia. She has come up with a new way to save money, by denying “expensive” medications to cancer patients.
Australia already controls drugs via its Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
Roxon is lobbying the committee to further restrict the dispensing of drugs.
“Dying cancer patients could be weaned off taxpayer-funded drugs as the Federal Government is confronted with spiralling health costs,” the Courier-Mail reported.
To control costs, the Australian Government proposes to decide who does and who does not receive needed medications. Those most affected will be those who most need the drugs, and that population is largely composed of the elderly, who are more prone to these diseases. Sounds like a “death panel” to me.
Maybe the lady knows what she is talking about.
UPDATE: And the Baucus “compromise” bill contains the functional equivalent. No “death panels,” Mr. President? You sure?
Nearly three weeks ago, the hits on this blog skyrocketed when, as far as I can tell, a popular author linked to this post. to say the least, it was dramatic:
I thought the “aftershock” would last for a day, two at most, so the slower descent surprised me. It kind of resembles a slope for thrill-crazed skiiers. 🙂
In any event, things look back to normal, now. Whoever the “unknown linker” was, thanks!
Okay, okay. It’s constitutionally impossible, but I can still wish for a president who can address the world with genuine moral clarity. From his address to the UN yesterday:
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.
But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?
A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.
What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.
History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.
This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.
Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.
It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.
Go, Bibi, go!!
For even more uncompromising moral clarity, let me recommend a good book.
Author Andrew Klavan on America’s most oppressed, victimized, and exploited minority group:
Michael Ledeen on Barack Obama:
American politics are very fractious, and always have been. Leaders are constantly frustrated, and some of them come to yearn for an end to our freedom. They think they know best, they just want to tell us what to do and have us shut up and do it. I think Obama is one of them. He’s not naïve. It’s different. He doesn’t like the way things work here, he thinks he can do much better, and he’s possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world, and should be prevented from doing such things ever again. The two convictions mesh perfectly. It’s The Best and the Brightest run amok.
Democratic leaders’ envy of tyrants’ power can be understood. But it can’t be forgiven.
Also known as “Dude… WTF???”
President Obama has notified Congress that he will be giving $400,000 –taxpayer dollars, not his own dosh- to charities run by the children of Libyan fruitcake (and translator abuser) Muammar Qaddafi.
Mr. President, sir, with all due respect… Are you out of your mind?
LINKS: Michelle Malkin.
As I mentioned in the last post, President Obama spoke before the UN General Assembly today outlining his narcissistic sense of self-importance the parameters of his administration’s foreign policy. The White House has posted the text of the speech. Read it for yourself, and then consider the comments of a man I hope one day to see as Secretary of State, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton:
I really can’t disagree. This speech was the essence of liberal internationalism, failing to defend America’s interests and instead putting unwarranted faith in international institutions and international law. Combining his recent moves of appeasement toward rivals and enemies from Moscow to Venezuela with his slaps in the face toward allies, this speech is at best a worrisome blueprint for the next three years.
Contrast that with these excerpts of remarks made in a speech in Hong Kong today by former Governor Sarah Palin to an investors conference, and then tell me who has a vision for the future more in tune with America’s character and interests.
(video via Weasel Zippers)
President Obama read from his teleprompter before the United Nations General Assembly today. As you’d expect from the head of state of a powerful country, his speech contained many important and interesting statements. Some of them may even have dealt with reality. Among those that didn’t, however, was this whopper:
“I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.”
It wouldn’t be an Obama speech without some attempt to make himself look good by misrepresenting the record of his predecessor. The plain fact is that the President’s statement is a lie. Whether born of ignorance or intent, I don’t know, but a lie it is. The truth is the United States in 2005 and 2006, working through the private sector and in ad-hoc partnerships with other nations and under the eeeevvviiillll, Gaea-murdering BushChimpHitler and Darth Cheney regime reduced carbon dioxide emissions without relying on the liberal internationalist statism beloved by the watermelon crowd and their dupes. That is, through pro-growth policies that didn’t require degrading lifestyles or crippling economies, but instead emphasized new technologies and the intelligent exploitation of natural resources.
The Anchoress has the full scoop. Be sure to read her post.
And if I may recommend a good book….
Perhaps I should buy the President a copy.
ADDENDUM: No, I’m not endorsing the idea that CO2 results in global warming climate change. My opinion is unchanged: the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is incorrect, verging on scientific fraud. My concern here was with the cock-and-bull story the President told.
A loving tribute to Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY):
Congratulations, Charlie! You earned it!
(hat tip: Fausta)
Churchill once said to President Roosevelt, “Give us the tools and we will finish the job.” It appears that President Obama has reached or is fast approaching that moment in Afghanistan, the war he has declared a war of necessity, for what else could one call it than a “crisis” when the nation’s top field commander threatens to resign if he doesn’t get the support he needs?
Within 24 hours of the leak of the Afghanistan assessment to The Washington Post, General Stanley McChrystal’s team fired its second shot across the bow of the Obama administration. According to McClatchy, military officers close to General McChrystal said he is prepared to resign if he isn’t given sufficient resources (read “troops”) to implement a change of direction in Afghanistan
In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.
Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.
“Yes, he’ll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far,” a senior official in Kabul said. “He’ll hold his ground. He’s not going to bend to political pressure.”
I was going to write a long post analyzing and criticizing the White House’s unconscionable vacillation in our commitment to victory in Afghanistan (though that vacillation in any recent conflict seems to be a feature, not a bug, of the Democratic Party), but I really cannot do better than this piece by Baseball Crank, which I urge you to read.
Presidents have often had trouble with generals, of course. Truman famously had to fire MacArthur for insubordination, but found a superb (and superior) replacement in Ridgway. Lincoln ran through generals like a man changes socks until he found a group that was not only competent, but would actually fight.
But President Obama doesn’t have President Lincoln’s problem. General McChrystal is highly regarded and quite willing to fight. But, to implement the counterinsurgency strategy he recommends (and which is supported by his boss, General Petraeus, the guy who saved Iraq), he needs more troops, the request for which the article at Baseball Crank reminds us generated shocking warnings of a WTF moment at the White House.
The question then becomes “How committed is the White House to victory in the war it declared a ‘necessity?'” Or was this, as a prominent liberal blogger declared, “…a political strategy, not a serious foreign policy?” To turn Churchill’s statement into a question and ask it for General McChrystal, “Will you give us the tools to finish the job, Mr. President?”
Or will Americans be left asking “WTF?”
From Jennifer Rubin:
Third, presented with a choice between governing as a centrist and governing as a leftist, he chose the latter, feeding the netroot machine with Bush invectives, championing huge government power grabs, nationalizing two car companies, apologizing incessantly for America’s real and imagined sins, undertaking a spending spree like no other president, and lecturing us about racism (proving that any hopes for a post-racial era were misplaced).
Had Obama run a campaign promising to excoriate his predecessor at every turn, pass a mammoth energy tax and regulatory scheme, chase private health insurance from the market, outspend George W. Bush, deride America to overseas foes, toss valued allies including Israel, Honduras, Poland, and the Czech Republic under the bus, renege on missile defense in Europe and cut our own systems by $2 billion, and hire a “truther” for green jobs czar and an attorney general who wants to talk more and more about race (but not prosecute the New Black Panthers), it is fair to say he would never have gotten elected. So it should be no mystery why so many voters are having buyers’ remorse.
For the other three, visit Pajamas Media.