Clueless or condescending?

So. The New York Times published and then promptly removed this insight into the President’s television viewing habits:

Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.

There are three ways to parse that. One, the President is cluelessly isolated, gets his information from “the shows” like Donald Trump, but doesn’t watch the right shows. Two, he was making a condescending joke about the drumbeat of the news cycle and denigrating the intelligence of Americans. Three, both.

It’s true that the media hyped the shootings in San Bernadino. Of course, so did the President in the service of gun control.

It’s true that the media hyped the shootings in San Bernadino. Just as they did Obama’s candidacy in 2008.

Maybe you should have read it first

And maybe Americans should have been told what was in it rather than being told we had to pass it to find out.


“We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let’s face it, a lot of us didn’t realize that passing the law was the easy part.”
-Barack Obama

Yep, they supposed deconstructing 1/6 of the American economy would be as easy as convincing Nancy Pelosi to say something stupid. Hell, they assumed she needed convincing to say something stupid. I’m pretty sure she volunteered.

Of course passing the law was the easy part. Unfortunately, just waving your hands and saying, “Make it so.” doesn’t work when your minions have zero experience in actually building anything and are economically ignorant.

So, Barack, You did build that.

Sergent Schultz in the White House

Things Obama, and/or his cronies, say he didn’t know about, an initial list.

Bill Ayers

Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Fast and Furious

Solyndra scam


IRS targeting of conservatives

Seizure of AP phone records

SEC/Goldman Sachs charges

Sending the Churchill bust back

The Petraeus scandal

NSA spying on allies

Obamacare website FUBAR

Obamacare sticker shock, health insurance cancellations and firing/defection of doctors

Any additions?

Bonus, an example of how ludicrous this all is.

Oxymoron of the day: "Qualified honesty."

MSNBC idiot says:

[T]hey [the Clintons] represent a style of honesty that the public craves right now. And that’s reflected in the numbers.

Well, of course! I know I crave a more profound debate.

For example, parsing the meaning of “is,” is much deeper than interpreting what is meant by “You can keep your plan.” The “style of honesty,” though, is the same: It’s looking Americans straight in the eye and saying something the speaker knows to be untrue. I’d call that a style of lying.

Public preference for a “style of honesty” (whatever that means) isn’t why Clinton is preferable to Obama. For one thing, Clinton’s lies didn’t involve actually destroying one-sixth of the economy while screwing millions of people: Clinton was content with screwing just a few and lying about it afterwards instead of beforehand.

In any case, the question is substance, not style.


John Kerry today defended Barack Obama’s surprise decision to ask Congress to share blame take a non-binding vote on Obama’s threat to mildly attack Syria. According to Kerry, it’s about American credibility (which apparently would not have benefited from Congressional approval prior to Friday evening):

The president then made the decision that he thought we would be stronger and the United States would act with greater moral authority and greater strength if we acted in a united way.
-John Kerry

A post on this at Althouse elicited the comment of the day from wildswan:

If someone killed an American ambassador and we did nothing – then would we lose credibility?
If we suddenly dumped an ally who was a corrupt dictator in his twentieth year of being a corrupt dictator – would we lose credibility?
If we publicly insulted an old reliable ally – would we lose credibility?
If we stood by while the Moslem Brotherhood burned Christian churches and shot Christian priests – would we lose credibility?

Well, as far as I know it is the position of the White House that if a President allowed any of those (admittedly unlikely) things to happen or even if he allowed all of them together, none of them would affect American credibility or prestige. And so I think the same is true of doing nothing about Syrians killing each other.

And I think the President would mess up any action Congress did authorize just as he messed up the killing of Bin Laden by exposing methods and the names of secret operatives. And he messed up the good results of the surge in Iraq. And he instantly stabbed Kerry in the back when Kerry advocated Obama’s own policy of launching an attack on Syria. And he’ll stab the military if Congress approves an attack. So even if getting into Syria was a good idea it would not be a good idea under this President.

Remember, the president’s decision to ask Congress for a vote was taken after he denied he needed Congress and blustered about attacking on his own, after he dispatched five warships to Syria and after he sent Kerry out to make the case for an attack on Thursday. I guess that’s called leading from behind the curve.

Read the whole post at Althouse.

Obanana Republic

On November 5th, 2008, I said that the Obama Administration would be the most corrupt in living memory. I was wrong. It’s not merely living memory. And it goes beyond simple corruption.

The American people have been subject to a direct, systematic attack by the federal government, accomplished via the tax laws. Extremely complex laws were combined with bureaucratic ignorance, institutional arrogance, a monopoly on the use of force and a leadership competent solely in permanent campaign mode; in a comprehensive effort to punish dissent, interfere in elections and restrict religious freedom. Information was demanded that could only result in limiting freedom of assembly. Confidential tax information was leaked. Lies were repeatedly told to the legislative branch and to all Americans. When it became apparent that the perfidy would be exposed, and before informing Congress, the IRS staged a passive “Mistakes were made” apology by planting a question at a press conference.

[The IRS] acknowledged it was wrong for the agency to target groups based on political affiliation.

“That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how we go about selecting cases for further review,” Lerner said at a conference sponsored by the American Bar Association.

“The IRS would like to apologize for that,” she added.

OK, go ahead and apologize, you have our permission. When you do, please reference the First Amendment. And then, name names, fire people and bring charges.

Admit that it was not just groups with the words “Tea Party” in their names. Discuss why, after president “Know Nothing” and his cronies specifically named individual Americans who disagree with the president’s policies, that those named individuals were audited. Expand on your understanding of why it’s wrong for the federal government to demand the content of individual prayers, specifically threatening perjury charges for those so questioned. Tell us why “progressive” groups received preferential treatment in the same time period. I think we need more insight than “inappropriate,” or “poor customer service.”

Tell us if you believe that the root problem is allowing corporations to practice free speech, and whether more regulation is needed. Why is current legal complexity insufficient unto hiding the IRS agenda? Explain why the reasons you gave for the “enhanced scrutiny,” don’t even hold up.

Finally, do you think the IRS transgressions are irrelevant if no one can prove that Obama is directly involved? Do you agree that if the president was involved, it shows that he is the most corrupt, tyrannical leader in American history, and that every branch of the executive division in our government is suspect? If the president wasn’t involved, can any number of straw men, any amount of ad hominem political hackery, any quantity of ignorance pleading – change the fact that it is his Administration?

Before answering, think about what it means if Obama wasn’t involved: The IRS, an agency with the power to destroy every person in America, did all of this on its own initiative.

Explain, please, why your actions did not violate each and every term of the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is a nascent protest scheduled at IRS locations on Tuesday May, 21st. At noon, I will be at:


Let us see what happens.


The president insists he didn’t say hard-work and intelligence are of little value without collectivist government intervention.

He claims his recorded, clearly articulated, heart-felt words are being taken out of context. To paraphrase his Democrat predecessor, “It depends on the context of “context.””.

In the context of reality, the context of the president’s remarks is even worse than the bald meaning of “You didn’t build that.”. That’s why he’s saying he didn’t say it. At question is the difference between meaning what you say and saying what you mean.

“Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on.

“I do,” Alice hastily replied; “at least—at least I mean what I say—that’s the same thing, you know.”

When the president says what he means he gets in trouble. As for meaning what he says? He does mean he didn’t say “You didn’t build that,” and probably even believes it himself.

Malia’s excellent vacation

If you want a worth reading look at the not so obvious issues surrounding Malia Obama’s trip to Mexico, check Claudia Rosett here.

But, like Rosett, I’ll relegate the Stalinist style ‘disappearing’ of stories about Malia’s Mexican sabbatical. It’s the sort of thing we’re used to.

What I find curious is that there are at least a dozen parents in DC who somehow thought letting their 13 and 14 year old daughters take a Mexican sabbatical was a good idea. I imagine the conversation with the school organizers of this trip went something like this:

School: “We’re planning a school trip to Mexico for 13 of our students this March. It will be very educational.”

“WTF? Mexico? You don’t think I’m letting my 13 year old baby go to Mexico? I can see the headline, “13 students kidnapped, raped and murdered.” And it’ll be by Mexican drug lords wielding guns purchased in the United States because of our barbaric Second Amendment. I think we’ll pass on this one.”

“No, no. It’s OK. We’ve already got the Obamas on board. Your daughter will be safer in Mexico than she is in DC. There will be 25 Secret Service agents. Besides, more 13 year olds than that get raped and almost as many get murdered in this town every month.”

“OH… OK, then. My 13 year old daughter gets world class protection, and I don’t have to pay for it? That makes up for The President’s failure to make someone pay for her birth control pills. I’m in.”

The wheels on the bus go round and round

Mark Levin, whom I admire, was complaining on Thursday about Glenn Beck’s (though Levin did not mention Beck’s name) focus on Van Jones, the President’s Czar for “Green Jobs.” I paraphrase Levin, “Yeah he’s an avowed Communist. Yeah, he said white people are poisoning black people. Yeah, he has an agenda to destroy capitalism by incremental environmental regulation. Yeah, he’s a despicable twit. But the only reason Van Jones in in government is Barack Obama! Focus on the real problem, people!”

Levin noted it was long ago obvious to sentient beings that people like Van Jones would be appointed by Barack Obama. Levin thinks detailing Jones’s radical stupidity is a distraction. Well, yes, for him and for me, but not for most people. Otherwise, they’d have been protesting Obama’s nomination instead of excusing his inexperience by saying he’d surround himself with good advisers.

Let us review. Jones is an avowed Communist. He excuses playing the race card because of environmentalism. He wants to destroy capitalism. (Is that redundant or just banal?) Charles Krauthammer is right that his Communist sympathy is sort of “ho, hum.”

He’s also right that Van Jones as a Truther, is not “ho, hum.” Van Jones also thinks cop killers like Abu-Jamal Mumia should be free. That is not “ho hum,” either.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, ‘Judge me by the people who surround me.’ OK. Then Mr. Jones is relevant, especially to those who didn’t understand during the campaign that Obama’s associations were distasteful.

Mark Levin is right: It isn’t Van Jones, Carol Browner, Ezekial Emmanuel, “Skip” Gates, Harold Koh, Cass Sunstein, Sonia Sotomayor, Eric Holder, Steven Rattner, John Holdren, Arne Duncan, Steven Chu, Susan Rice, Regina M. Benjamin, Mark Lloyd, Valerie Jarret, or any of the other official Presidential advisers who subscribe to the philosophy of Karl Marx, the ethics of Peter Singer or the tactics of Saul Alinsky who are the issue – any more than it was Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, Tony Rezko, Louis Farrakhan, Bernadine Dohrn, or Rashid Khalidi, who were an issue during the campaign. No, they are important because it is by listening to them we find out what Barack Obama thinks is reasonable discourse, if not precisely what he believes.

Yes, it is Barack Obama who is the issue. But since he never says what he thinks, we only find out what he really believes, as he has invited us to do, by listening to the people who surround him.

I think Jones will soon be free to pursue other employment. Obama has to be greasing the wheels on the bus. I certainly hope so.

Obambi’s open hand slapped

Hungary 1956. Prague 1968. Tiananmen Square 1989. The only thing missing in Tehran are the Communist tanks.

Our President broke 3 days of silence on the Iranian election fraud today. Maybe it was pictures of people being murdered by the Quds Force and their ilk that bestirred him.

Barack Obama is “deeply troubled” by violence in Iran. He urged the Iranian theocracy to “respect free speech and the democratic process.” He promised to continue pursuing “tough dialogue” with Iran.

Where’s Jimmy Carter when you need him?

Some good coverage here and here.