Gunwalker: “Does no one care about the dead Mexicans?”

October 10, 2011

Subbing for Hugh Hewitt on the radio last week, the great Mark Steyn asked a darned good question that touched on hypocritical liberal bigotry:

“Now real Mexicans are dead,” he continued. “Does the president of the United States, does his attorney general, does CNN, does The New York Times, does NPR — do they not care about dead Mexicans?

“I mean, forget the United States Border Patrol guys that were killed about these ‘Fast & Furious’ guns. Real-live, or previously live, citizens of third world countries — the kind of people that NPR, The New York Times claim to love — are dead because of this.”

“Why isn’t that a national scandal?” he pleaded. “This is absolutely a — Iran-Contra didn’t rack of that kind of body count. Watergate didn’t rack up that kind of body count. Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, or whatever stupid story they were chasing around Wasilla for months, that didn’t rack up a body count. There were hundreds of dead Mexicans from a gun running program run by the United States.”

The answer, of course, is that they only care about the dead Mexicans when they’re useful for attacking a Republican administration

Click through for a recording of the segment.

RELATED: At Fausta’s blog, read all about how Sinaloa’s top assassin was hoarding weapons obtained via Operation Fast and Furious. Earlier Gunwalker posts.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Quote of the Day, Weiner edition

June 8, 2011

Mark Steyn on Anthony Weiner’s peccadilloes as an argument against Big Government:

I don’t look to minor functionaries of the leviathan to be “role models.” Nuts to that: Weiner, Edwards, Rangel, [Your Congressman Here], “role models”? I’m just looking for the same level of integrity I expect from my hardware store or insurance agency. But by its nature Big Government will attract strange people drawn to “public service” for the boundless opportunities it offers the otherwise untalented for unearned perquisites and gratifications of one kind or another. As I said in my weekend column, you can’t have small government with big Weiners. The bigger the state gets, the more the modus operandi of its princelings will tend to the Weinerian.

Now all we need is “Weinerian opera.”


That “wretched buffoon” Lindsey Graham

April 5, 2011

Mark Steyn rips into Senator Lindsey “Free Speech unless someone gets upset” Graham:

Andrew, ever since I ran into a spot of bother in Canada, I’ve found myself giving speeches in defense of freedom of expression in Toronto, London, Copenhagen, etc. I did not think it would be necessary quite so soon to take the same stand in the land of the First Amendment against craven squishes of the political class willing to trade core liberties for a quiet life. I have no expectations of Harry Reid or the New York Times, but I have nothing but total contempt for the wretched buffoon Graham. A mob of deranged ululating blood-lusting head-hackers slaughter Norwegian female aid-workers and Nepalese guards — and we’re the ones with the problem?

I agree with the Instaprof: Lindsey Graham is unfit for office. The good news is there’s no need for the excitable lads of Mazar e-Sharif to chop his head off because he’s already walking around with nothing up there.

It’s Steyn in outrage mode, and you don’t want to miss it.

via Ed Driscoll

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Foreign Policy: Obama’s map

February 14, 2011

Mark Steyn is back, this time with a column about the crumbling of the post-colonial American order in the Middle East. As one would expect from a old-school and highly literate conservative, Steyn’s view is a depressing one:

Iran is nuclearizing, Turkey is Islamizing, Egypt is …what exactly? Well, we’ll find out. But, given that only the army and/or the Muslim Brotherhood are sufficiently organized to govern the nation, the notion that we’re witnessing the youthful buds of any meaningful democracy is deluded. So who’ll come out on top? The generals or the Brothers? Given that the Brotherhood got played for suckers by the army in the revolution of ’52, I doubt they’ll be so foolish as to make the same mistake again – and the hopeychangey “democracy movement” provides the most useful cover in generations. Meanwhile, James Clapper, the worthless buffoon who serves as the hyperpower’s Director of “Intelligence”, goes before Congress to tell the world that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “secular” organization. Americans ought to take to the streets to demand Clapper vacate whatever presidential palace in DC he’s holed up in.

Amidst all this flowering of democracy, you’ll notice that it’s only the pro-American dictatorships on the ropes: In Libya and Syria, Gaddafy and Assad sleep soundly in their beds. On the other hand, if you were either of the two King Abdullahs, in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, and you looked at the Obama Administration’s very public abandonment of their Cairo strongman, what would you conclude about the value of being an American ally? For the last three weeks, the superpower has sent the consistent message to the world that (as Bernard Lewis feared some years ago) America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.

I’d be more hopeful if I had any confidence in the Obama administration’s handling of foreign affairs, but I don’t. From Inauguration Day forward, Obama and his entire team have shown themselves to be dunderheaded incompetents whose philosophy of foreign policy can be summed up by “Kiss your enemies, backhand your allies.”

As for The One, himself, outside of a bizarre fixation on arms-control with Russia, which was au courant when he was in college but is a hopelessly retrograde priority in the modern day, I really don’t think he cares a whit about foreign affairs, even though that is a primary responsibility of the presidency. The Egyptian revolt was Obama’s 3AM phone call, that moment that Joe Biden told us we should gird our loins for, and he let it go to the answering service. When his aides, his Secretary of State, his vice-president, and even he, himself, all said confusing and contradictory things day after day, it was because he doesn’t care enough to learn what he needs to know in order to come up with an effective strategy. As Niall Ferguson writes in an essay for The Daily Beast ripping Obama’s handling of Egypt:

Grand strategy is all about the necessity of choice. Today, it means choosing between a daunting list of objectives: to resist the spread of radical Islam, to limit Iran’s ambition to become dominant in the Middle East, to contain the rise of China as an economic rival, to guard against a Russian “reconquista” of Eastern Europe—and so on. The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so. A succession of speeches saying, in essence, “I am not George W. Bush” is no substitute for a strategy.

Bismarck knew how to choose. He understood that riding the nationalist wave would enable Prussia to become the dominant force in Germany, but that thereafter the No. 1 objective must be to keep France and Russia from uniting against his new Reich. When asked for his opinion about colonizing Africa, Bismarck famously replied: “My map of Africa lies in Europe. Here lies Russia and here lies France, and we are in the middle. That is my map of Africa.”

Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama’s map of the Middle East is. At best, it is in the heartland states of America, where the fate of his presidency will be decided next year, just as Jimmy Carter’s was back in 1980.

At worst, he has no map at all.

Nor any desire to buy one.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The unengaged president

June 26, 2010

Mark Steyn has a great column at National Review you should read, comparing the President’s lack of interest in dealing with the Gulf oil spill to his lack of interest in Afghanistan (except when he’s accuse of being uninterested) and find the major media finally getting the message our enemies already understand:

Only the other day, Sen. George Lemieux of Florida attempted to rouse the president to jump-start America’s overpaid, over-manned, and oversleeping federal bureaucracy and get it to do something on the oil debacle. There are 2,000 oil skimmers in the United States: Weeks after the spill, only 20 of them are off the coast of Florida. Seventeen friendly nations with great expertise in the field have offered their own skimmers; the Dutch volunteered their “super-skimmers”: Obama turned them all down. Raising the problem, Senator Lemieux found the president unengaged and uninformed. “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers,” reported the senator.

He doesn’t seem to know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t care. “It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy is no heart at all,” wrote Richard Cohen in the Washington Post last week. “For instance, it’s not clear that Obama is appalled by China’s appalling human rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia. . . . The president seems to stand foursquare for nothing much.

“This, of course, is the Obama enigma: Who is this guy? What are his core beliefs?”

Gee, if only your newspaper had thought to ask those fascinating questions oh, say, a month before the Iowa caucuses.

Read it all.

(via Sarahbellumd)


Quote of the day: Mark Steyn on Arizona

April 30, 2010

The inimitable Mark Steyn on Mayor Gavin Newsom’s  boycott of Arizona, ordered in a moment of self-righteous grandstanding response to the Zonies’  new immigration law:

All official visits to Arizona have been canceled indefinitely. You couldn’t get sanctions like these imposed at the U.N. Security Council, but then, unlike Arizona, Iran is not a universally reviled pariah. Will a full-scale economic embargo devastate the Copper State? Who knows? It’s not clear to me what San Francisco imports from Arizona. Chaps?

Three points, nothing but net.  Rolling on the floor


Who ya gonna call?

January 25, 2010

You’re President Obama. (Oh, stop crying. It’s just pretend.) Most of the country hates the centerpiece policy of your administration, health care reform. Those same people think you’re doing a lousy job creating jobs, protecting the country, and even just keeping your word. Your personal ratings are tanking and you’ve just had your butt kicked in three straight state elections.

Things are looking bad, so whom do you send for to help right the ship? Why, your ex-campaign manager, of course!

David Plouffe, the man who managed President Barack Obamas campaign, will be taking on an expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House, according to sources familiar with the plan, a move that comes just days after a stunning defeat for Democrats in a Massachusetts Senate special election.

Jennifer Rubin sees this as the essence of Obamaism:

Not a new economic team. Not a new chief of staff. Not even a new national security staff to replace the gang that dropped the ball on the Christmas Day bomber. No, with the Obami, it is never about substance or getting the policy right. It’s not about governance. It is about the perpetual campaign. So the campaign manager gets the emergency call.

Of course, because all Obama knows is how to campaign; he’s never held a position with real executive accountability before, either in government or out, unlike, oh, Sarah Palin. As Mark Steyn puts it:

The most striking aspect of his performance (in Massachusetts) was how unhappy he looked, as if he doesn’t enjoy the job. You can understand why. He ran as something he’s not, and never has been: a post-partisan, centrist, transformative healer. That’d be a difficult trick to pull off even for somebody with any prior executive experience, someone who’d actually run something, like a state, or even a town, or even a commercial fishing operation, like that poor chillbilly boob Sarah Palin. At one point late in the 2008 campaign, when someone suggested that if Governor Palin was “unqualified” then surely he was too, Obama pointed out as evidence to the contrary his ability to run such an effective campaign. In other words, running for president was his main qualification for being president.

No wonder he’s summoned Plouffe: our president wants to go back to his “happy place” – being on campaign.

Back to Rubin, she goes on to comment on a recent article by Plouffe that’s nothing less than a masterpiece of denial. In it, he argues that the Democrats just need to double-down on what they’ve been doing for the last year, and everything will come up rainbows and unicorns next November. Jennifer rolls her eyes at him, but Jim Geraghty unleashes both barrels of a 12-gauge fisking:

If his op-ed accurately depicts what the Obama and broader Democratic strategy is going to be, then I think the floor for Republican wins in the House in 2010 will be about 217 seats and the ceiling is . . . oh, 435?

Plouffe describes the health-care bill as “a good plan that has become a demonized caricature.” It seems to him incomprehensible that a majority might genuinely oppose legislation that includes government fees for having too much health insurance — with or without a union exemption — taxpayer funding of abortions, potential coverage of illegal immigrants, special deals for the states of Nebraska and Louisiana because their senators held out, and the government eventually taking some treatments off the table because they’re deemed insufficiently cost-effective.

Strangely, a few paragraphs later, “Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for.” Except when they disagree with you, huh, David?

And that’s just for starters: read and enjoy the whole thing.

So, with his policy a shambles, his administration disoriented, and his party heading for the rocks in November, Barack Obama calls for a man who urges more cowbell.

Are we sure this isn’t a Karl Rove plot?  I dont know

(via Obi’s Sister)