What? BO wants to spend another $50 bln of our $ to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters”? That is exactly what we need, layoffs of teachers and firefighters, and “massively.” It is this bunch in complicity with their unions who are responsible for cratering local gov’t in the first place for goodness sake.
This Obama is one dangerous guy.
Robert Craven
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Pride of Ownership
“Hey, all you do is criticize our president. For a change why don’t you help the guy? At least print something constructive,” we’re admonished by the nursery crowd; which is to say, ok, we lefties got all of us into a fix, just as you predicted but we want you to help clean up the mess anyway and guide this guy to his next term.
Are you kidding me? Why should we lay off this guy? The Founders put a system in place that will take care of it over the near term.
We stated flatly last year that BO does not understand 1) Americans or 2) America. Others have come to see this truth. Johan Goldberg tags Obama quite accurately as, “A creature of elite universities with a progressive’s love of technocrats; Obama is most comfortable leading colloquia of perfect-SAT-score propeller heads.”
Indeed, earlier we highlighted a portion on an interview, where BO explained, “I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care. . . . But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.” Oh, these miserable democracies! This clown is at the helm?
Dorothy Rabinowitz calls BO, The Alien in the White House. “A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House...”
Geoff Hunt writes in the American Thinker, wondering why the free fall, why the “deer-in-the-headlights” at the WH. “It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task --- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us, and, whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant, and his notions of how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.”
So no, we’re not being petty, throwing shots from the cheap seats. We have understood all along that there is nothing there.
Obama may be an citizen on paper,yet all but the willfully blind now understand that he has no pride of ownership.
Robert Craven
Are you kidding me? Why should we lay off this guy? The Founders put a system in place that will take care of it over the near term.
We stated flatly last year that BO does not understand 1) Americans or 2) America. Others have come to see this truth. Johan Goldberg tags Obama quite accurately as, “A creature of elite universities with a progressive’s love of technocrats; Obama is most comfortable leading colloquia of perfect-SAT-score propeller heads.”
Indeed, earlier we highlighted a portion on an interview, where BO explained, “I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care. . . . But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.” Oh, these miserable democracies! This clown is at the helm?
Dorothy Rabinowitz calls BO, The Alien in the White House. “A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House...”
Geoff Hunt writes in the American Thinker, wondering why the free fall, why the “deer-in-the-headlights” at the WH. “It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task --- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us, and, whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant, and his notions of how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.”
So no, we’re not being petty, throwing shots from the cheap seats. We have understood all along that there is nothing there.
Obama may be an citizen on paper,yet all but the willfully blind now understand that he has no pride of ownership.
Robert Craven
Thursday, June 10, 2010
In Character
Highlighting the other day Obama’s broken campaign promises, his politics-as-usual WH, his string of foreign policy failures, his stealth leveraging of race, his constant whining about how tough he’s got it, our nursery friend responded: “I still like him. I hate Dick Cheney.” (Ask this guy about the weather, his band, the time of day, same answer - “I hate Dick Cheney.” Not the Muslim thugs who would shoot him on sight, not his own Dodd and Frank who triggered the financial crisis, no, only Cheney.) Of course as most of us understand, what’s this have to do with bo’s failures?
Those two sentences, both designed to camouflage, reflect the foundation of retreat for this group. Cheney kept their hind ends safe for 8 years during which time all they did was criticize him for the effort. But since BO has now disappointed even his most ardent supporters, best thing is to pull out the Cheney-foil as cover, even 18 months later. That, and the racist tool are both past their once high altitude of fashion; it’s only the far left who haven’t caught on. And the rest? Chuckling.
And why are they surprised? Why for example does the old lefty Dan Ellsberg respond as follows in appraising his on-time hero, BO - “He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. ...... his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs,"?
Why do these people suffer so? Do they ever read anything but Cosmo and Time? We imagine ‘ol Dan has progressed from that. Then why are he and the rest of the chatterers surprised? BO is acting perfectly in character. He holds forth as if in a fish bowl, unable to comprehend, or not wanting to comprehend the consequences of his radical agenda - a perfect reflection of his radical past.
We have never blamed Obama; we have blamed those who pulled the trigger - for their lack of scholarship.
Robert Craven
Those two sentences, both designed to camouflage, reflect the foundation of retreat for this group. Cheney kept their hind ends safe for 8 years during which time all they did was criticize him for the effort. But since BO has now disappointed even his most ardent supporters, best thing is to pull out the Cheney-foil as cover, even 18 months later. That, and the racist tool are both past their once high altitude of fashion; it’s only the far left who haven’t caught on. And the rest? Chuckling.
And why are they surprised? Why for example does the old lefty Dan Ellsberg respond as follows in appraising his on-time hero, BO - “He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. ...... his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs,"?
Why do these people suffer so? Do they ever read anything but Cosmo and Time? We imagine ‘ol Dan has progressed from that. Then why are he and the rest of the chatterers surprised? BO is acting perfectly in character. He holds forth as if in a fish bowl, unable to comprehend, or not wanting to comprehend the consequences of his radical agenda - a perfect reflection of his radical past.
We have never blamed Obama; we have blamed those who pulled the trigger - for their lack of scholarship.
Robert Craven
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Violation
We no longer have to make the case for the Israelis in the recent turn of events.
Let’s move on. Moving on may mean moving sideways, perhaps even backwards. We refer of course to Barak “Deer-In-The-Headlights” Obama. Or have we been a tad hasty? “Give the guy a chance,” some say.
OK. Let’s be fair, objective; let’s shed any party affiliation for a moment; it won’t kill us. Let’s, both sides, have the courage to self assess. Just like our conversation at the nursery - there is respect, there is listening, there is in some cases reappraisal, some growth, both parties, both left and right. Let’s give it a go here.
It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats and take shots at the guy in the arena. Teddy told us that. We’ve seen the left do it repeatedly, something they readily admit - Bush’s library comes to mind. (Bush has read more books than any 15 of the chattering class will ever read in a lifetime.) And it was not Bush who said “nucular” or “corpseman” or “Cinco de Quatro”. Too much. But let’s take the high road.
Let’s look at the obvious - BO’s promise to change politics, to screen out the sleazy stuff; the reason perhaps most of the cool aide crowd voted for him. Well, to us he’s added to the mess. Are we wrong? He’s violated a major commandment of his campaign. A mortal sin. Isn’t this true? Didn’t BO just offer two Dem candidates jobs if they would drop out of their respective races? Yes? Although this may not be the stuff impeachment is made of, it is as Rich Lowry puts it actions, “that are remarkably ham-handed instances of the transactional, bullying politics in which Obama’s team specializes, despite working for the most sanctimonious man in America.” We all agree?
Or what about race? BO promised a post racial era. That was a farce. No? Recall the good rev Wright, recall “typical” white people, those who “cling” to guns and religion; recall police who in racial stereotyping act “stupidly.” How about BO’s guy Van Jones’s racist remarks; how about Holder’s “cowards” smear and Sotomayor’s lectures about the superiority of a “wise Latina?” Had enough? Know what? BO does not like whites nor Christians. Think that is a crude statement, not pr? Well, we happened to read his book, Audacity of Hope (horribly edited we might add). We do recall one line which goes as follows: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
A comforting thought.
Finally, we post a comment received on the last blog,from one CL: "Liberalism seems closely linked to alcoholism in that it's a disease of denial. One indicator of this is the reaction you get when you try to help either type of person with the facts or objective realities of their condition - congnitive dissonance erupts fanned by emotional fury." Indeed.
Robert Craven
Let’s move on. Moving on may mean moving sideways, perhaps even backwards. We refer of course to Barak “Deer-In-The-Headlights” Obama. Or have we been a tad hasty? “Give the guy a chance,” some say.
OK. Let’s be fair, objective; let’s shed any party affiliation for a moment; it won’t kill us. Let’s, both sides, have the courage to self assess. Just like our conversation at the nursery - there is respect, there is listening, there is in some cases reappraisal, some growth, both parties, both left and right. Let’s give it a go here.
It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats and take shots at the guy in the arena. Teddy told us that. We’ve seen the left do it repeatedly, something they readily admit - Bush’s library comes to mind. (Bush has read more books than any 15 of the chattering class will ever read in a lifetime.) And it was not Bush who said “nucular” or “corpseman” or “Cinco de Quatro”. Too much. But let’s take the high road.
Let’s look at the obvious - BO’s promise to change politics, to screen out the sleazy stuff; the reason perhaps most of the cool aide crowd voted for him. Well, to us he’s added to the mess. Are we wrong? He’s violated a major commandment of his campaign. A mortal sin. Isn’t this true? Didn’t BO just offer two Dem candidates jobs if they would drop out of their respective races? Yes? Although this may not be the stuff impeachment is made of, it is as Rich Lowry puts it actions, “that are remarkably ham-handed instances of the transactional, bullying politics in which Obama’s team specializes, despite working for the most sanctimonious man in America.” We all agree?
Or what about race? BO promised a post racial era. That was a farce. No? Recall the good rev Wright, recall “typical” white people, those who “cling” to guns and religion; recall police who in racial stereotyping act “stupidly.” How about BO’s guy Van Jones’s racist remarks; how about Holder’s “cowards” smear and Sotomayor’s lectures about the superiority of a “wise Latina?” Had enough? Know what? BO does not like whites nor Christians. Think that is a crude statement, not pr? Well, we happened to read his book, Audacity of Hope (horribly edited we might add). We do recall one line which goes as follows: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
A comforting thought.
Finally, we post a comment received on the last blog,from one CL: "Liberalism seems closely linked to alcoholism in that it's a disease of denial. One indicator of this is the reaction you get when you try to help either type of person with the facts or objective realities of their condition - congnitive dissonance erupts fanned by emotional fury." Indeed.
Robert Craven
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Whiner-In-Chief
We noted early on that BO does not understand America or Americans. How could he, restricted to the faculty lounge crowd, mixed in with the Chicago machine? But that’s ok, he was elected anyway. “Was” elected. Not a chance now as most of his flock see that they have been fleeced.
What is it that really bothers these types? They’ve got plenty of faults - a dismal lack of scholarship of current events is one of them; a complete lack of sense of history another, yet even they, handicapped as they are can’t stomach whiners. They’ve just realized they’ve elected one.
BO complains incessantly about what Fox, Rush, Republicans, others say about him. He gets upset when his bogus facts are challenged - health, C-SPAN, transparency and bipartisanship. He figures the dark side is after him and wants all of us to believe it.
Peter Wehner points out in a recent article that at a fund-raising event for Boxer, BO whined as follows: “Let’s face it. This has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930's.” What?!
Read this my friends, those of you who may have pulled the trigger for this clown. Now think back. Worse that Dec /7/1941? No? Yes? Worse than what Reagan faced after Carter? Worse than ‘68, with Bobby Kennedy and King both dead, turmoil on the streets? My, my. Worse than what FDR faced when he nearly single handedly provided support for the Brits? Worse than what Truman faced after the war? No? Yes?
Wehner notes that in his autobiography "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which "only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process." Oh, thank you Dean, forgot all about that.
Come on. This Obama guy, this self-indulgent little man thinks he’s got it tough?
Robert Craven
What is it that really bothers these types? They’ve got plenty of faults - a dismal lack of scholarship of current events is one of them; a complete lack of sense of history another, yet even they, handicapped as they are can’t stomach whiners. They’ve just realized they’ve elected one.
BO complains incessantly about what Fox, Rush, Republicans, others say about him. He gets upset when his bogus facts are challenged - health, C-SPAN, transparency and bipartisanship. He figures the dark side is after him and wants all of us to believe it.
Peter Wehner points out in a recent article that at a fund-raising event for Boxer, BO whined as follows: “Let’s face it. This has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930's.” What?!
Read this my friends, those of you who may have pulled the trigger for this clown. Now think back. Worse that Dec /7/1941? No? Yes? Worse than what Reagan faced after Carter? Worse than ‘68, with Bobby Kennedy and King both dead, turmoil on the streets? My, my. Worse than what FDR faced when he nearly single handedly provided support for the Brits? Worse than what Truman faced after the war? No? Yes?
Wehner notes that in his autobiography "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which "only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process." Oh, thank you Dean, forgot all about that.
Come on. This Obama guy, this self-indulgent little man thinks he’s got it tough?
Robert Craven
Nowhere To Hide
Listening to Obama in the Rose Garden we must admit to a moral lapse in the man, something which cheers many of his detractors but simply saddens those of us who look to the interests of America before politics.
As Peggy Noonan observed, "When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way."
Obama, deer-in-the-headlights fashion blamed the oil mess on Bush by noting that, "...these problems have been around for a decade or more..." The fact is that is was bo's Interior Dept which gave BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in '09. Obama administration officials last year short-circuited the process; thus Transocean and BP drilled this well without full environmental and safety review. Oh, that.
In Obama we have an individual ill equipped to do most anything except talk and seek cover. Is that why his ratings are in the tank? Suppose so. Most folk, even Democrats expect a president to get things done, not spend all of his time blaming his predecessor and feeling sorry for himself.
Just for amusement's sake, let's take a look at Excuse Number One: "He's a war criminal," screech the Marin left. The favorite T-shirt of this bunch - "Bush lied / thousands died" This type, an embarrassment to normal folk. You know, if you're with friends and one of the chatterers chirps up, you move out of range to check the oil, whatever. You might have to acknowledge knowing the guy.
In fact, the day after 9-11 consensus in Congress, including that role-model-of-a-man Ted Kennedy believed Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and for the simple reason that in 1998 he gave a long list of both chemical and germ components to the UN. Was he lying? Ask the Kurds about an earlier time. He may have lied about his arsenal in 1998; that doesn't make Bush out to be a liar. And most of the left have come to understand this fact. They have also come to understand, at least most of them, that they were used, made out to be dupes.
There are plenty who still take DNC talking points to heart, just a whole lot less of them nowadays. Folks don't want to be made out to be fools, certainly not twice.
BO depended on this group's loyalty for nourishment, for his support and he courted them without fail. As the excuses grow older and the stalwarts grow fewer our dear leader finds he has nowhere to hide.
Robert Craven
As Peggy Noonan observed, "When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way."
Obama, deer-in-the-headlights fashion blamed the oil mess on Bush by noting that, "...these problems have been around for a decade or more..." The fact is that is was bo's Interior Dept which gave BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in '09. Obama administration officials last year short-circuited the process; thus Transocean and BP drilled this well without full environmental and safety review. Oh, that.
In Obama we have an individual ill equipped to do most anything except talk and seek cover. Is that why his ratings are in the tank? Suppose so. Most folk, even Democrats expect a president to get things done, not spend all of his time blaming his predecessor and feeling sorry for himself.
Just for amusement's sake, let's take a look at Excuse Number One: "He's a war criminal," screech the Marin left. The favorite T-shirt of this bunch - "Bush lied / thousands died" This type, an embarrassment to normal folk. You know, if you're with friends and one of the chatterers chirps up, you move out of range to check the oil, whatever. You might have to acknowledge knowing the guy.
In fact, the day after 9-11 consensus in Congress, including that role-model-of-a-man Ted Kennedy believed Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and for the simple reason that in 1998 he gave a long list of both chemical and germ components to the UN. Was he lying? Ask the Kurds about an earlier time. He may have lied about his arsenal in 1998; that doesn't make Bush out to be a liar. And most of the left have come to understand this fact. They have also come to understand, at least most of them, that they were used, made out to be dupes.
There are plenty who still take DNC talking points to heart, just a whole lot less of them nowadays. Folks don't want to be made out to be fools, certainly not twice.
BO depended on this group's loyalty for nourishment, for his support and he courted them without fail. As the excuses grow older and the stalwarts grow fewer our dear leader finds he has nowhere to hide.
Robert Craven
Friday, May 21, 2010
Marketing The Left
For the first time in US history an extremist group has control of the executive branch.
How can we distill this experience, secure an anchor through the noise and bullets? What then has it meant or may it mean for each of us individually, or for all of us, collectively, for our fortunes, for our children, for our security?
We think there is such an anchor. It is this - those at the helm have set out to effect a great leveling - domestically in the dilution of a meritocracy, internationally through the chiseling away at American leadership.
This is the common denominator. Are we not all impacted, or potentially impacted by this programming? We highlight examples below that demonstrate that we are. (We could just as easily highlight BO’s intentional leveling off shore - his appeasement of Syria, slap at Lebanon; his humiliating effort to appease Iran and coddle Russia while insulting Israel and ignoring our great allies in E Europe, all of which have corroded US security.)
We have examined in past blogs the now well known statist emblem in fashion with the majority. In terms most pedestrian it is this - the more government control the better. But are we at the core issue, or merely surface feeding? Is there something freighted with more horsepower, something which will give timbre and profundity to the thing? We think there is: The left cannot accept the variance of fortune which goes with free markets. They look to effect on all of us a sameness. Why? Because it sells, or did.
For example, the other day at the nursery the conversation was tagged to high Wall St salaries. "That outa be a crime," came the shout from a woman at the counter. That outburst may reflect envy, it may reflect the admission of a poor career decision but it most certainly does not reflect economic literacy. As Tom Sowell notes, "The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago. The fortunes that the sellers amassed were not a deduction from the buyers' wealth. Buyers and sellers both gained from these transactions or the transactions wouldn't have continued." Most of us understand this yet to the left it calls for a leveling. Why? Because it sells.
Or, consider Obama’s recent statement that, "... at some point, you have made enough money." There is obviously a moral bankruptcy to BO’s notion that others can decide what is good for you. Most normal people understand this but we are more interested in the core issue - the base instinct of the left to level society; it could be by the way of education; in this case, it is by the way of income (unless of course it is their income).
Another example is the health-care plan. There are those in our society who are self-insured, who are prudent and thrifty and have put away $ for medical emergencies. They don’t need insurance. They stand out as role models. And, they will be punished because of it, tamped to the level of their less prudent neighbors. These Americans must pay a yearly penalty of $695 per individual, or up to 2.5% of their income if they cannot show they have bought a gov’t insured plan; the family penalty is $347/child up to $2250 per family. Pay or go to jail.
A meritocracy is an anathema to the left. This is a true thing. There are always enough folk like the woman at the nursery who seek shelter, a soft vengeance against achievers; always enough who demand the easy way; it is these upon whom the left depends for its sustenance, it is these from whom operatives of the left extract their nourishment.
A land of only Trumans and Reagans and Teddy’s would mean an end to that malignancy which we know to be today’s Democratic party.
Robert Craven
How can we distill this experience, secure an anchor through the noise and bullets? What then has it meant or may it mean for each of us individually, or for all of us, collectively, for our fortunes, for our children, for our security?
We think there is such an anchor. It is this - those at the helm have set out to effect a great leveling - domestically in the dilution of a meritocracy, internationally through the chiseling away at American leadership.
This is the common denominator. Are we not all impacted, or potentially impacted by this programming? We highlight examples below that demonstrate that we are. (We could just as easily highlight BO’s intentional leveling off shore - his appeasement of Syria, slap at Lebanon; his humiliating effort to appease Iran and coddle Russia while insulting Israel and ignoring our great allies in E Europe, all of which have corroded US security.)
We have examined in past blogs the now well known statist emblem in fashion with the majority. In terms most pedestrian it is this - the more government control the better. But are we at the core issue, or merely surface feeding? Is there something freighted with more horsepower, something which will give timbre and profundity to the thing? We think there is: The left cannot accept the variance of fortune which goes with free markets. They look to effect on all of us a sameness. Why? Because it sells, or did.
For example, the other day at the nursery the conversation was tagged to high Wall St salaries. "That outa be a crime," came the shout from a woman at the counter. That outburst may reflect envy, it may reflect the admission of a poor career decision but it most certainly does not reflect economic literacy. As Tom Sowell notes, "The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago. The fortunes that the sellers amassed were not a deduction from the buyers' wealth. Buyers and sellers both gained from these transactions or the transactions wouldn't have continued." Most of us understand this yet to the left it calls for a leveling. Why? Because it sells.
Or, consider Obama’s recent statement that, "... at some point, you have made enough money." There is obviously a moral bankruptcy to BO’s notion that others can decide what is good for you. Most normal people understand this but we are more interested in the core issue - the base instinct of the left to level society; it could be by the way of education; in this case, it is by the way of income (unless of course it is their income).
Another example is the health-care plan. There are those in our society who are self-insured, who are prudent and thrifty and have put away $ for medical emergencies. They don’t need insurance. They stand out as role models. And, they will be punished because of it, tamped to the level of their less prudent neighbors. These Americans must pay a yearly penalty of $695 per individual, or up to 2.5% of their income if they cannot show they have bought a gov’t insured plan; the family penalty is $347/child up to $2250 per family. Pay or go to jail.
A meritocracy is an anathema to the left. This is a true thing. There are always enough folk like the woman at the nursery who seek shelter, a soft vengeance against achievers; always enough who demand the easy way; it is these upon whom the left depends for its sustenance, it is these from whom operatives of the left extract their nourishment.
A land of only Trumans and Reagans and Teddy’s would mean an end to that malignancy which we know to be today’s Democratic party.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
