Vocal Minority

Obama's Revenge: Day 4 (1/24/13)

‎"Vote! Voting is the best revenge." - Barack H. Obama, Nov. 2, 2012

(Yes, I'm already 2 days behind in this. So sue me)

President Hope&Change's determination to decimate the military and turn it into an emasculate glorified peace corps contingent continues. Look, I don't care if women are allowed to go to the front lines. If they have the skills and the, um, cajones, then all more power to them. 

But there's more that went on: The relieving of duty of General James Mattis, who had replaced Gen. David Patraeus as head of CENTCOM since August 2010.

From Michael Walsh at Wednesday's NY Post:

Lost in the inaugural hullabaloo was Tuesday’s news that President Obama has relieved Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, the colorful and highly decorated Marine who’s been in charge of the crucial US Central Command, which oversees the various wars in the Middle East, since 2010.

Mattis is famous for his blunt style and blistering aphorisms — “be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet” was his clear-headed advice to the Marines he led during the treacherous Iraq War. He’ll retire from both CentCom and the Corps in March, several months short of his expected tour of duty.

Walsh goes on to conclude that Obama's letting Mattis go was political and ideological. AWR Hawkins at Breitbart explains the firing was because Mattis dared questioned the omniscient Obama's Middle East Policy:

In particular, it appears his questions surrounding the U.S. response to Iran's nuclear ambitions drew the ire of civilian military and security advisers. 

These civilians were apparently upset by the way Mattis pushed them to "consider second and third-order consequences of military action against Iran." Nor did they appreciate the way he pushed them to think long term and consider what the U.S. will do if Iran develops non-nuclear weapons that can be used to keep U.S. ships out of the Persian Gulf.

Mattis also expressed concern over the consequences of certain aspects of the U.S. approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems this line of reasoning didn't sit well with National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

James Lewis, in a provocative piece in yesterday's AT, agrees, writes:

Real human progress comes hard, very hard.

There are heroes in the world. Most of humanity doesn't come close. Compared to Dr. King and Abe Lincoln, Obama is a hollow man, clinging to a faith outworn.

General James Mattis is being fired for insisting on complete contingency planning, according to Pentagon reporter Tom Ricks. Truth-telling isn't welcome in this administration, and that means big trouble ahead. General Mattis and the military understand that. The general insisted on full planning for all predictable outcomes.

Obama is a gambler, and he doesn't want to think about what might happen if his wild gambles don't pay off. He is amazingly overconfident. General Mattis is a thinker. He is a responsible combat leader.

The differences are huge. [...]

General Mattis rose to fame by the success of his combat strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Mattis who taught his Marines to tell the population that "we are your best friend and your worst enemy." In Iraqistan a lot of people got that.

In Afghanistan, after the Brits withdrew from Helmand Province with serious losses, the U.S. Marines took over the battleground. They practiced the Mattis Doctrine, walked combat patrols and risked personal death and injury to let the people decide. Today Helmand Province is pacified -- at least until Obama skedaddles outta there. 

The Taliban are now holed up in the mountains. They are very patient fanatics.

So we have Obama firing a very effective, albeit "controversial", general. We have Hillary wriggling like a worm on a hook during these ridiculous Benghazi hearings. And we have the Democrats' favorite military-bashing traitor John Kerry at the top of the short list for Secretary of State.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Rhetoric vs. Reality: Muslim World with Obama vs. Bush

Rhetoric:

Remember that lib/Dem narrative that George W. Bush caused all the world's Muslims to hate us and that Obama's election was supposed to "restore" America's "moral standing" in the world, particularly with Muslim nations? Well how has that worked out?

Reality:

[h/t the Bad Rachel blog]

Yeah. Real nice.

 

 

 

Reactions to Obama URJ Speech

On Friday morning, as Reform (read: liberal) Jews lined up and endured security checks to see President Obama's address, I snarkily posted on my Facebook page that I "warn the ghost of Moses to stay away from D.C. There's a Golden Calf in town and we all know what happened the last time he saw thousands of Jews worshiping a false idol." That drew many "Likes," including from some non-Jews.

Here are what some Jewish commentators said about the performance. The first two are from Jonathan Tobin at Commentary:

Obama’s Jewish Pitch: Liberal, Not Israel

That Obama’s speech followed a lengthy tribute at the event on the 50^th anniversary of Reform’s Religious Action Center was not exactly a coincidence. The RAC is the embodiment of the belief by some that the liberal political stands are indistinguishable from Judaism. Much of the RAC’s agenda: support for abortion, Obamacare, “economic justice” (so defined as to encompass support for higher taxes and more entitlement spending) and gay marriage are not Jewish issues even if they are ideas that many Jews support.

And it is to those concerns that Obama spoke with passion on Friday as he bragged that “the change we needed and voted for” had satisfied much of the laundry list of the RAC’s political wish list. The old quip that Reform Judaism consists of the Democratic Party platform with holidays thrown in never seemed more true as thousands yelled their approval when Obama let loose with class warfare rhetoric. By casting the political debate as a “moral issue” of the interests of “working people” against “the powerful,” the president played to the desire of liberal Jews to interpret their own partisanship as somehow being part of their religious tradition. Indeed, so deeply entrenched are such attitudes among liberals that it never occurred to the cheering throng that letting a candidate for public office — even an incumbent president — use a religious gathering for partisan political purposes was inappropriate. ...

I’m not surprised in the least by this reaction. Unfortunately, the hateful and un-American class warfare rhetoric of Obama’s is red meat for Jewish liberals.

But I wonder if any of the clergypeople in attendance -- there had to be at least 2,000 -- are aware of their own hypocrisy. How can you castigate "the rich" for "not paying their fair share" when they, as clergy, as well as their houses of worship are exempt from paying income taxes! In addition, most (Reform) clergy, while not being quite the 1%, reside in quite luxurious homes and drive pretty fancy cars. Not all of them, of course, but very many. To these clergypeople -- many of whom are happy to give lectures about those evil Christian theocrats trying to impose their religion on us and invoke the putative "separation of Church and State" -- I say put your money where your mouths are. Really believe in a separation of Church and State? Then put your money where your mouths are and abdicate your tax exempt status.

Tobin goes on in a subsequent post:

What’s the “Different Story” About Obama and Israel?

... [T]hough the president told his Reform listeners not to “let anybody else tell a different story,” his account of his relations with Israel is, to put it mildly, incomplete.

From his first moments in office, Obama set out to distance the United States from Israel. The intention was both to draw a distinction between the closeness of the Bush administration to the Jewish state but also to create a greater bond between the Arab and Islamic world and the United States. President Obama’s June 2009 Cairo speech drew a moral equivalence between the Holocaust and the plight of the Palestinians. This attempt to reach out to Muslims failed miserably, but the one thing he accomplished was to convince the Palestinians they could avoid negotiating with Israel because Obama was willing to fight the Israelis for them.

In his speech, the president noted his frustration with the lack of progress toward peace but failed to acknowledge that he has chosen to vent that anger solely at Israel by picking damaging and unnecessary fights with the Netanyahu government. No president has done more to undermine Israel’s position on Jerusalem. His stance on the 1967 borders was, like his stance on Jerusalem, a precedent setter that tilted the diplomatic field toward the Palestinians. It is this record that has caused Israelis to regard him with less favor than any other American president in a generation. ...

Indeed. And yet after the speech I found myself debating the issue on Facebook with Jewish friends in attendance at the speech. They can't see what makes Obama so anti-Israel.

At the Israel's daily paper HaAretz, Chemi Shalev wrote:

 The bottom line: Obama speaks Jewish, Republicans don’t

If I were a Republican watching the live stream of President Obama’s speech before the Reform movement’s biennial convention in Washington on Friday, I would have reached two immediate conclusions: 1. Obama, the consummate campaigner who has been more or less missing in action since his inauguration, is back and 2. Forget about the Reform Jewish vote. He’s got that locked up.

Yes, he does. That's for sure. Remember that old nasty quote from George H.W. Bush's Secretary of State: "F**k the Jews. They won't vote for us anyway."? Well, for Obama and the Democrats, the strategy is evidently: "F**k the Jews. They will vote for us anyway."

Indeed, they must have been tearing their hair out, the Republicans, to see the audience give wave after wave of ecstatic applause and standing ovations to the man who, as Mitt Romney put it, “threw Israel under a bus” - especially after weeks of having fallen over themselves to express their undying love and uncritical support for the Jewish state. Perhaps there won’t be a sea change in the Jewish vote, they might console themselves after this speech, but let’s hope for a modest stream, or a trickle, at the very least. ...

 

Obama, Cain, and Family T'giving Discussions

For many of us, Thanksgiving weekend meant seeing family. Because I am one of the extremely few conservatives in both the wife's family and my own, discussions that turned to politics became interesting. None of these conversations were particularly long or involved, but some of them provided some insight that I was not expecting.

Truth be told, I was not spoiling for a fight or really looking for political conversation. But if the topic came up, I would gladly engage. With an uncle the topic of Occupy Wall Street came up. Because I know him to be center-right I thought I was safe to express my utter contempt for the Occupy movement. Surprisingly, I was wrong. My citation of certain Limbaugh quotes about OWS didn't help things either. My uncle was much more sympathetic with OWS than I anticipated -- not their behavior, but their message -- and resented Rush "looking down his nose" at them.

Unfortunately, due to the craziness of the gathering and because dinner was about to be served, I didn't get the chance to follow up by determining exactly what message was being presumed. I had a feeling that this relative, no stranger to newspapers and current events, had formulated his opinions about OWS based on doctored and whitewashed media depictions.

Next, a liberal-Democrat relative asked me, "So, are you still on the Cain train, or is that over?" That was actually a valid question. True, I have not blogged about Herman Cain lately. As much as it pains me to say it, he has totally screwed up the past two debates (foreign policy and national security) as well as his defense against the sexual harassment allegations. If Cain were as serious as he promised, he would have prepared himself much better for those debates.

Let me state right here that, due to all his assets, Herman Cain is still my favorite candidate (along with Newt). But if he allows himself to get crushed by the relentless media smears, false accusations, and his own unpreparedness, it will have been his own fault.

This is basically what I told my questioner.

A third conversation I was simply a witness of, not a participant. A devout Jew declared out loud that from now on she's just voting on the topic of Israel. Good, I thought. Another vote for Obama lost.

Finally, the following exchange took place while enjoying the unseasonably mild weather outside with a Democrat relative whose spouse is among the most staunchly leftist (socialist even) in my family. When she started with the question, "So, don't tell me you like Sarah Palin and this Tea Party crap," I knew this was gonna get good.

I responded, "First of all, Sarah Palin isn't running for anything and secondly, I am a proud Tea Partier and it's not crap to want our nation to return to small, constitutionally limited government." Interestingly, she did agree with me that the Democrats had indeed made government way too massive and intrusive and that maybe she'd vote Republican next year, just for the hell of it. But then she said something about the rich and the poor and there needing to be more "fairness" and then said she's probably a socialist. I clarified that if she was really socialist then she would want government to get even bigger, not smaller.

Yes, she was all over the place. She really doesn't follow politics and basically just "goes with the flow." These are the people we have to get hold of. When "independent" minds listen to arguments, they should in theory side with conservatism.

Anyone else out there have family political discussions this past weekend that turned interesting?

Is the Jewish State Dividing American Jewry?

On this, the 63rd birthday of the State of Israel, some provocative words from Jonathan Rosenblum at JWR.

That American Jews can no longer rally around Israel is a tragedy. But it would be a far greater tragedy if those Jews who identify with the Jewish state and are comfortable defending it continued to let ineffectual communal organizations speak for them.

A War Gone Missing

Peter Heck at American Thinker notices the mainstream media has focused on everything under the sun this past week -- except a certain war President Hope&Change started in Libya.

I'm hoping someone can help me.  I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing.  I've looked for it on all the major networks and cable outlets (excepting Fox News), as well as all the major newspapers.  Although I've found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama's Libyan War is officially missing in action. ...

In Iraq they trumpeted every death, every setback, every struggle as part of their ongoing effort to defeat President Bush. But now, confronted with the perfect example of American presidential ineptitude, a flailing Commander-in-Chief leading a confused, bizarre military operation with no real purpose, they wag the dog.

And though flagrant media bias comes as no surprise, this sin of omission is particularly galling given the indignant drumbeat of negativity that defined their coverage of previous military conflicts. It is the clearest example yet of how desperate the leftist media is to get President Obama re-elected. ...

Listen & Learn: Mark Levin on Libya and War Powers Act (3/24/11) [UPDATED]

Last Thursday, Mark Levin donned his professorial hat and dedicated the first hour to delivering an informative lecture on Libya (which he opposes) and the presidential War Powers Act. It's a topic I knew very little about, and I recall it coming up back during the first Bush term when liberals would argue that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Bush didn't get "an official declaration from Congress." Mark clears that up too.

Sharpen your pencils; class is in session.

[Edited for commercials, long pauses, and other extraneous content]

Download clip here

Download clip here

UPDATE: It was brought to my attention that Mark Levin's discussion of the war powers has been challenged by professor Thomas Woods. (Woods is apparently not a huge fan of Mark, either as a scholar or a human being; his disdain is quite evident in the linked pieces.)

It seems that by being so behind on my podcasts, I have missed the exchange that has ensued between Levin and Woods since last Thursday. To be continued then ...

Paul Krugman and The Know-Nothings

From James Lewis at American Thinker, a real scathing and no-holds-barred of the intellectual moronic-ness that liberals like Krugman project:

Paul Krugman recently was quoted as telling the world he doesn't follow contemporary conservative news commentary. Krugman's open contempt for the dominant political philosophy of the Western Enlightenment, including most of American history, is incredibly revealing. It's not just one New York Times guru of Political Correctness. No, I've run into Krugman's mental lockbox among "educated" people all my life, people with advanced degrees who just mouth the platitudes of the left. In all their education they never learned to open their minds. 

It is pathetic. Intellectually, Paul Krugman has just run up the white flag. That's how we have to see the self-censorship of the left. In a free marketplace of ideas they can't survive. It's our job to restore the free media and give Americans a choice again.

*     *     *     *     *

Ever wonder why the left doesn't teach history? It's one disaster after another for them.

Until the organized left decided to purge our schools and universities of our own Western traditions, "conservatism" was called "liberalism," because it celebrated liberty of thought, liberty of speech and religion, freedom of association, and free ownership of productive assets, including the fruits of one's own labors. Today China, India and Russia have thrown off their Marxist shackles and their economies are suddenly thriving, and we can still see the wonders of South Korea right next to the Stalinist nightmare of the North. 

But Paul Krugman, economist extraordinaire, just doesn't get it. What is it you don't get, Professor Krugman? ...

*     *     *     *     *

The left doesn't  need official censors because they carry their own censors in their heads. But just to make sure, they also work to block the free flow of information to everybody else. That must be why the media have to witchhunt Sarah Palin and Clarence Thomas on a regular basis, a smart conservative woman and a smart conservative black man. It's why they have to keep smearing good and decent people. If their own followers ever figured out the scam the media couldn't compete. 

Liberals are constantly telling their obedient flocks what not to listen to, like Fox News. I've never heard a conservative radio host tell the audience not to read the New York Times. Who would listen to that?  We stay astonished by the Mind-locked Media, to see what kind of disinformation they pump out every day. The liberal media provide daily mind-food for conservatives, just like the old Kremlinologists who would look at air-brushed photos of Soviet apparatchiks standing on top of Lenin's tomb, to see who was in power and who got purged.

We criticize their ideas, while they go on poisoning the wellsprings. That's why they fell for global warming fraud and for con artists like Bernie Madoff. If you have no conscience and want to make a million bucks, try selling GM Volts to liberals. But sell them an expensive accident policy at the same time, for the inevitable moment when their motor buggy gets crushed on the freeway. You can get them coming and going, if you have no conscience. If you do have a conscience you can only tell the truth and hope.

Leftist censorship often seems like a source of power for the left, but it's also a great weakness, because reality keeps finding them out.  Ever since he took office Obama has looked stunned that nothing works the way he expects. Maybe that's why he's playing so much golf, to get away from all the bad news. Baffled. Why don't the Muslims and Israelis do what I tell them? Why doesn't the economy rebound from my "stimulus"? He doesn't get it. The more things get out of control, the more confused he feels. It wasn't supposed to be this way. ...

Lots more where that came from.

 

The top 10 violations of the Constitution by Obama and the 111th Congress

From Paul Skousen at The Daily Caller.

At the close of the 111th Congress, America is deeply in the bog of Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning: “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Unfortunately, the broken chains of the Constitution have failed to contain the federal government.

By way of review, let’s take a stroll through the junkyard of constitutional violations that have been painted fresh by President Obama and the 111th Congress. . ...

 

Liberal Media Bias: The NY Times' WikiLeaks Hypocrisy

From IBD Editorials:

… We have come a long way from the patriotic slogan “loose lips sink ships.” Today they sell newspapers and win Pulitzer Prizes.

Keller explained that in printing the purloined classified WikiLeaks documents, other outlets had the same information that would have gotten out anyway and that “it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.” Right.

That rationale was nowhere in sight when the administration pushed for cap-and-trade legislation, and a climate change treaty at Copenhagen was derailed by the unearthing of e-mails from Britain’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

When Climate-gate broke, and e-mails revealed that scientists worldwide were deleting and doctoring data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures and engaging in an organized campaign to discredit climate-change skeptics and deny them publication in scientific journals, the Times pompously declined to print any of them or even give them credence.

As Times Environment Editor Andrew Revkin explained in November 2009: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Oh. The fact that they shredded the Times’ editorial position in support of fighting global warming had nothing to do with it.

The WikiLeaks documents were obtained illegally in a clear-cut case of espionage. They contained private information and statements never intended for public viewing. That they also damage America’s national security interests does not matter to the New York Times. …

This is not the first time the Times has helped sell out America. In a June 23, 2006, story by Eric Lichtblau and James Risen headlined “Bank Data Sifted In Secret By U.S. To Block Terror,” the Times helped expose an effective tool used to “follow the money” and unravel and disable the terrorist financing network.

As the Times reporters admitted, the effort had helped locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing and a Brooklyn man convicted of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan. Keller at the time said he ran the story and betrayed U.S. secrets in the “public interest.”

Why is it in the “public interest,” as the Times put it, for a housewife in, say, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to be aware that the government sworn to protect her and her family is looking for possible al-Qaida money transfers through a Belgian clearinghouse? …

The difference between the Climate-gate e-mails and the WikiLeaks documents is that when information might keep the U.S. from making an expensive domestic policy mistake, it is to be suppressed and discredited. When it hurts America’s national security, it’s news that’s fit to print.

WikiLeaks: Was the Obama WH Involved?

A skeptical reader writes to Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs:

... Now, we have the 2nd set of Wikileaks  (involving literally hundreds of thousands of documents), which this Government has known was coming for some time now.  I DID read most of these documents this time, and I can tell you this one thing and that is his:  Mr. Julian Assange (along with some 22-year-old Private in the US Army) did not do this alone.  I realize that computer hackers are good at what they do: Mr.  Assange DID NOT get his hands on literally 100's of thousands of Documents from the U S State Department, etc., without someone in upper levels of Government (with Obama's WH), and Holder's Justice Department, turning a blind eye and a deaf ear.  It simply cannot be done.  You will not see any serious investigations by Holder's (traitor to his core)  I consider Obama, as well as Holder guilty of Treason of the highest order. Of course, I consider B. Hussein Mohamed Obama to be America's number one enemy.

Basically, this would have NEVER happened under a Reagan Administration.

We all know that Obama's goal is to fundamentally change America, and bring it to its knees.  We also know that George Soros' number one goal is to destroy our Republic.  If I am not mistaken  Mr. Soros is a member of The Open Society Organization as is Mr. Assange.  I believe the WikiLeaks (parts 1 and 2) were orchestrated by GS.  How would Julian Assange manage to release all these Top Secret Documents, which basically spills the beans on what America thinks about everyone of our enemies and our Allies wiout the help of someone with very deep pockets, if you get my drift. How does  Assange stay alive, where does he get hismoney. Who pays for his lawyer.   Some guy from Australia, aided by a private in the USARMY does this.  Simply cannot be none.   Obama (with GS's help)  allowed this to happen. ...

Whoa. Those are pretty serious allegations.

Think we'll ever find out if they're true?

Central NJ Chapter of the RJC Launches in Manalapan

Last night, I and two other righties from my neck of the woods attended the inaugural gathering of the Central New Jersey Chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition. For a couple years I was waiting for such a chapter to develop, being sandwiched between two distant chapters in NYC and Philadelphia.

I don’t think anyone was really able to predict the turnout, optimistically setting up 200 chairs at a room at the Excelsior in Manalapan. It turned out about 275 came!

For those of you not familiar with Garden State demographics, the central part of the state is a tad more conservative than the parts neighboring deep blue NYC and Philly. Still (especially because these are Jews we’re talking about) the turnout was amazing. It was a mixture of Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. Some were longtime staunch Republicans, others were former Democrats—even former office-holders—who had recently seen the light about the Democrat Party and its radical leftist agenda, and still others were registered independents searching for a political home. It was a fantastic, uplifting feeling. As I shouted in the crowd at one moment, this is what hope and change looks like!

The keynote speaker was Commentary Magazine’s Jennifer Rubin. Two local running Republican candidates spoke as well, Anna Little and Scott Sipprelle. Sipprelle is running against long-time incumbent Congressman Rush Holt in NJ-12. Holt, a dependable liberal, joined Bill Pascrell (NJ-8) and Donald Payne (NJ-10) and 51 other Democrats to denounce Israel’s conduct during the “flotilla” incident earlier this year.

While yours truly, just on the edge of 40, was present, the average age of the attendees was probably the mid-50’s. You could tell these were decent, hardworking citizens who were concerned about security for Israel, for their children in their young adulthood, and for themselves in their retirement. Many had their own stories about being the only one of their ideological ilk in their family, or at their temple. So, naturally, the sense of comeraderie among all of us, was instantaneous.

One month to go before mid-term elections. Stories have come out since 2009 about Jews abandoning Obama and the Democrat Party as it currently exists (but not necessarily jumping gleefully to the Republican side.) I know at least two relatives who usually vote Democrat who are regretful of their Obama vote and who are already planning to vote Republican against the Democrat incumbent in their district.

Let’s keep looking forward, friends. This is what hope and change looks like.

Article of Note: Jewish Message to Obama

From YNet News:

Jewish message to Obama
Op-ed: American Jews should not vote for any Democrat in upcoming US elections
Shoula Romano Horing | 09.26.10

Quote of the Day (9/22/10): Robert O'Brien on the UN General Assembly

My 13-year-old son, who is far more interested in sports than politics, walked into the family room yesterday and said: “Dad, I saw on the news that the thing is starting when all the dictators come to America and give speeches about how bad we are.” His statement is one of the better descriptions of the United Nations General Assembly (the UNGA) that I have ever heard.

- Robert O'Brien, in an article at the Daily Caller.

Ground Zero Mosque and Tolerance

Good points here:

Ground Zero on the Tolerance Issue
Debra Saunders

… First, the right opposes the mosque. Conservative figures like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich don't like a mosque near ground zero. They say as much.

Then, in a Pavlovian response, the left embraces the mosque and proclaims itself more tolerant of religious freedom. But the left is not more tolerant of religious freedom. Only the left, you see, has the sagacity to recognize that, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd put it, Rauf is "the moderate Muslim we have allegedly been yearning for."

What you're seeing is the culture-war equivalent of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Quoth House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some." Translation: This issue is poison for Democrats.

And: "I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded." That's Bay Area tolerance for you — a well-placed Democratic politician wants an investigation into the funding of conservative dissenters. …

So it's more than ironic to watch the same folks who jump all over devout Christians now rush to Muslims' defense. This isn't about the left being more tolerant, as much as it is about the left disdaining the right. …

Bingo.

Liberal Lie #7: George W. Bush Caused the World's Muslims to Hate Us

Jewish World Review | August 12, 2010
Is Obama Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Arab and Muslim World?
Larry Elder

... Now 20 months into the Obama presidency, the question is: How does the Arab and Muslim world now view America? What percentage in the same six Arab nations — compared with Bush's last year in office — now views the United States "very unfavorably" or "somewhat unfavorably"?

The answer: 85 percent — 2 points higher than Bush.

Whoops.

Epic FAIL.

Listen & Learn: Four Segments of El Rushbo Broadcast Excellence (7/13/10)

El Rushbo was on a roll yesterday. The first hour was just a series of monologue after brilliant monologue. The audio clip below contains four of those segments, edited, as usual, for long silences, commercial breaks, and other extraneous parts.

In the first segment, Rush wonders out loud why liberals are perpetually unhappy. And rightly so. Here we have a black president, a Democrat House and Senate, the eeeeevil private sector being tarnished and torn while the government gets bigger and bigger, government-run health (s)care passed, plus all of their favorite countries are being coddled, and hated countries being scorned. We are living in a virtual liberal utopia, so why are they still unhappy? Listen to the clip to find out.

The second segment, beginning at around 5:20, is my favorite: a Limbaugh-esque reply to Obama advisor David Axelrod. Axelrod recently made the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the GOP wants to “turn our country backward.” In response, Rush does the unexpected: He agrees with him!

The transcript of the response is here, for anyone who wants to copy it and share it online or by email. It’s that good:

“Recently, Obama advisor David Axelrod stated that America would be going ‘backwards’ if they allowed the GOP to take the majority in 2010”? Well, let me tell you something: I don’t know about you, folks, but I would love to go backwards! I would love to go back about a year and a half.

I’d love to go back when people’s houses had value, and the expectation was that the value would increase every year.

I’d love to go backwards to when we had a 4.7% unemployment rate.

I would love to go backwards to where our taxes were lower.

I would love to go backwards where our health care was affordable and excellent.

I would love to go backwards when our investments had a good chance of growing.

I would love to go backwards when people’s children could get jobs with their expensive college educations.

I would love to go backwards when we had leaders motivating and inspiring young people to seek the world, to seek their dreams.

I would love to go back to that period of time. It’s just a year and a half ago and beyond. Who wants to live in an era where the president and the first lady tell college graduates to screw it? Don’t get into the money making professions. Oh, yes, Mr. Axelrod, I would love to go back!

I would love to go back to a period of time when my president actually liked my country.

I would love to go back to a period of time when my president respected my country and my president was proud of it.

I would love to go back to a period of time where my president was not trying to destroy things that he thinks have been unfair for 20 or 30 years or 230 years.

I would love to go back to a period of time where my president did not look at the United States as the problem in the world.

I would love to go back, Mr. Axelrod, to a period of time where we had leaders who could the United States was exceptional and could indeed be the economic engine and the freedom engine of the world.

I would love to go back, and we don’t have to go back very few, Mr. Axelrod. Just 18, 19 months. Oh yes, I would love to go backwards, Mr. Axelrod.

And speaking of going backwards, isn’t that what Axelrod wants to do? Doesn’t Axelrod want to go back to the sixties? Aren’t he and his buddies perpetually trapped in the idealism and the promise of the 1960s? Perhaps we could say they would love to go back even further, to the time of Marx. Anita Dunn might like to go back to the time of Mao Tse-tung in the 30’s and 40’s! Some of the great dictators of all time are the professed inspiration for many members of the regime. So, yeah, we’re not the only ones that want to go backwards.

Told you it was classic.

Next, at around the 8:24 point, Rush talks about the death of longtime N.Y. Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in a way that he himself admitted was going to drive the liberati into apoplexy, mainly (1) As a capitalist, Steinbrenner knew when to die: before the death tax is reinstated in 2011, and (2) For a “cracker,” Steinbrenner sure made a lot of African-Americans wealthy.

Finally, at around the 10:00 mark, Rush discusses some polls—including a couple in the Washington Post of all places—that reports on the growing disillusionment with President Obama among voting blocks which are very important to the Democrats, including independents, environmentalists, the young college-educated, Hispanics, and Jews.

Enjoy these 14 minutes of brilliant broadcast excellence!

[Edited for long silences, commercial breaks, and extraneous talking]

(Download clip here)

The Selective Modesty of Barack Obama - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online

The Selective Modesty of Barack Obama - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online.

Sensible Liberal: Elton John

Last week I was gratified by El Rushbo’s story about Elton John performing at his wedding, and about the events leading up to their unlikely friendship. (In a nutshell, they “met” while staying at the same hotel in Hawaii at the time Rush had his heart scare.). John apparently has gotten a lot of flak from his fellow ohh-so-tolerant liberal friends for befriending such a supposedly Neanderthal homophobe. So much for that “can we all get along” thing. John actually walked the walk, and gets criticism for it!

In any case, John has not been a fan of American Republicans/conservatives before. He was particularly vocal in his distate for George W. Bush.

Because of his politics, I don’t know what exactly motivated Elton John to reach out to Rush in Hawaii. But the fact that he did and the friendship that developed is very telling of John’s character. For that alone he deserved a “Sensible Liberal” post, but being on my blog vaca (which I’m still on, technically!) I didn’t get to write one.

Well, here’s one for him now, because for the second time this month he’s dared to go against the global Leftist grain:

Elton John rocks Israel after other artists cancel
Jun 18, 4:16 AM (ET)

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) - A concert by Elton John has given Israelis a boost after a string of cancellations by other world-famous artists.

The British rocker performed late Thursday in front of a screaming crowd of nearly 50,000 fans at a Tel Aviv stadium.

John, who wore blue-tinted sunglasses, told the audience those cancellations “ain’t gonna stop me from playing here, baby.”

Recent cancellations by the Pixies and Elvis Costello, who cited Israeli government policies, have added to Israel’s growing sense of isolation.

John swiped at those artists, saying, “We do not cherry-pick our consciences,” before hitting the opening chords of his 1972 hit “Crocodile Rock.”

To say the least, this whole thing with Israel–“peace” flotilla thing is so infuriating. Israel is the most democratic and humane country in the Middle East, and are in the Leftist world’s crosshairs because they have the audacity to defend themselves when agitated by the thugs that surround them. And I personally take the Left’s aversion toward Israel as veiled anti-Semitism. Helen “Go back to Poland” Thomas might agree.

It might sound cliché, but I consider this is a very dangerous time for Israel. Not only is the world on its back for perceived indiscretions, but she no longer has its most stalwart and powerful ally—the U.S.—on its side.

I just came back from a conference of several hundred Jews where I was virtually the only right-of-center person there. While I didn’t push political conversation, it was a very safe bet that I was the only one who didn’t vote for Obama and the only one who regrets that he is the president. President Golden Calf’s ultra-liberalism trumps all other transgressions to my fellow Jewish friends. And his treatment toward Israel, especially in light of the beating she’s taking from the rest of the world, is proof of that.

Is Elton John still a flaming (bad word choice?) liberal? Of course he is. But that doesn’t make these actions any less honorable.

Meanwhile, I wonder if my friends will have second thoughts about any artists who might have cancelled concerts in Israel.

Or will they keep them on their iPod’s singing along with them about love and peace and unity and togetherness. All while riding along in their fuel-efficient cars which still don Obama-Biden bumper stickers.

Oy.

Ways the Left Has Screwed Up My Country Today: Obama Cr@ps on Daniel Pearl's Memory with Meaningless "Act"

The ever-insightful Mark Steyn hit it on the head with this National Review article from this weekend [bolds mine]:

May 22, 2010
One of Those Moments
Mark Steyn

The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. …

Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”

Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.

This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder … the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception. …

“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”

He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same. …

As far as I’m concerned, Barack Obama crapped on Pearl’s memory. First, this whole “free press” is a freaking joke. Steyn is right in noting Pearl’s murder had nothing to do with a free press. It had to do with the threat by radical Islam to freedom, period. This is a lesson that President Hope&Change and his feckless gaggle of blame-America-first cronies like Hillary and Posner still haven’t learned.

Second, Obama craps on Pearl’s memory by referring to his brutal on-camera beheading a “loss.” How insipid and callous can one get?

Thirdly, as Steyn points out, how can Obama insist on caring about Daniel Pearl when he and his America-hating terrorist-coddling AG Holder have defied all reason and historic precedence to give his beheader taxpayer funded attorneys to be defended him in civilian freaking court!

Finally, as Steyn also notes, by taking on this “one world” stance, Obama is exposed for his typical blame-America-first mentality. He apparently believes that the killing of Daniel Pearl could somehow have been prevented if only the U.S. engaged the Muslim world and the rest of those other countries it—read: Bush!—isolated for too long.

How can anyone argue that Obama gives one whit about Daniel Pearl and the real reasons he was killed? I’ll bet Barack Obama never even saw the video of Pearl’s beheading. I only saw it once and that was enough to make me almost need to run to the bathroom and puke. He is not only completely ignorant, but also truly cold-hearted and devoid of any character whatsoever. I have absolutely no respect for this empty-suited and empty-hearted shadow of a human being that now occupies the Oval Office.

UPDATE: A slightly tweaked version of this article appears in this morning's (Monday, May 24) Washington Times.