Nov 052009
 

Someone at the Chicago Tribune figured it out…

Imagine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

“V” was certainly worth watching on its own merits. I was a fan of the original “V” back in the day, so I was a bit leery of this new one. But it was well done. One thing that’s unclear is why the Visitors have come… unlike what the Tribune author says, they have not yet made it clear that they are here to eat the humans. It’s just that they’re here with *not* our best interests in mind.

Some interesting features:

1) The V’s offer Universal Healthcare

2) The V’s “are of peace… always”

3) The V’s have infiltrated all levels of society/government

4) The V’s actively court “youth” to be “ambassadors”

5) The kids so seduced by the V’s spread pro-V propaganda via viral videos, tagging, etc.

6) The V’s offer Hope

7) Many humans respond with adoration, devotion and worship

8 ) Reporters who ask tough questions are shouted down by other reporters who want them to “show some respect”

9) The leader of the V’s won’t allow questions that cast the V’s in a bad light, and will find reporters willing to corrupt their journalistic principles to promote their careers in order to get the right sort of positive questions asked

The notion that this new “V” is something of a slap against the Obama administration and the hysterical cult of personality that has surrounded it is unavoidable. But will it last? Since this is Hollywood, I can’t see it… sooner or later, they’ll turn it around and the Obamunists will emerge as the good guys.

 Posted by at 11:34 am
Oct 262009
 

During the campaign, Obama suggested that he could be judged by the people he chose to surround himself with. Well… the judgement is starting to come in… not just Communist, but Mao-ist. Does that sound like hyperbole? Normally, yeah. But there are two lines of reasoning here:

1) Look at the policies being pushed… a fiscal policy that seems to target the dollar and the American economy for destruction, coupled with a “blame the capitalists” strategy, leaving  massive government takeovers as the supposed only choice.

2) Oddly, more and more of Obamas advisors and Czars keep dropping little hints that they think that Chairman Mao was just the coolest. Behold Ron Bloom, Obama’s “Manufacturing Czar,” talking to a group of investors, telling them about the steelworkers union:

A) They “are loyal – when we’re bought, we generally tend to stay bought”
B) They “have no inheirant loyalty”
C) They “agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun”
D) “The free market is a joke”

And there’s Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, praising Mao as one of her “favorite political philosophers.” The best video of that I’ve found is from the Glenn Beck show, so it comes with commentary.

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other. In 1947, when Mao Tse-tung was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, the Nationalist Chinese helped the cities, they had the army, they had the Air Force, they had everything on their side. And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this? Against all the odds against you?” And Mao Tse-tung said, “You fight your war and I’ll fight mine,” and think about that for a second. 

She also calls Mother Theresa another one of her favorite political philosophers, a notion that also does not win her any points with me…  but that’s a seperate rant.

And then there are the other jackasses in the White House, as I pointed out before.

Now, it’s certainly possible that Dunn and Bloom were joking in their glowing references to Mao. Oh, sure, there’s certainly nothing funnier than invoking the memory of historys greatest mass-murderer in a context that seems to indicate that you think imposing his policies of genocide upon your political opponants would be just neato-keen. Why, just the other day I invoked the memory of Stalin while cleaning the little box. Who doesn’t?

But the thing is, why would they select Mao to not only quote, but make it clear that they agree with him? As opposed to, say, Hitler, Napoleon, Jim Jones, Hannibal Lector, Jimmy Carter or any of the other great monsters of history?

The thing is, while both Bloom and Dunn have claimed “humor” as their excuse, there’s zero evidence of that. For that to be humorous, the point of bringing up Mao would be to either disagree with him, or mock him and his philosophies, something like that. Instead, the context shows that they agree with Mao.

So. Obama spent decades associating with “black liberation theologists” (basically, Marxism and racism melded together intoa  neat little religious package), and packed his administration with outright commies (Van Jones) and others who praise commies. So, if one were to follow Obamas advice and judge him by the people he associates with, what would one come up with?

 Posted by at 8:11 am
Oct 212009
 

If this report is true… then anyone who knows of this and continues to support Obama is a FRICKEN MORON.

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

Blasphemy laws are blatantly unConstitutional. The first time an American gets in trouble for blasphemy under this bullcrap, Obama should be impeached and sued into permanent poverty. This is a betrayal of all that America stands for.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

fuuuuu.jpg

 Posted by at 7:29 pm
Oct 202009
 

Oh, freakin’ hurray.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/inside-the-ring-2059116/#

President Obama recently shifted authority for approving sales to China of missile and space technology from the White House to the Commerce Department — a move critics say will loosen export controls and potentially benefit Chinese missile development.

The president issued a little-noticed “presidential determination” Sept. 29 that delegated authority for determining whether missile and space exports should be approved for China to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

 Posted by at 10:26 am
Oct 092009
 

Even though I’m currently not in the optimal position for blogging, this obviously cannot go without comment:

President Barack Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize

OSLO – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.

When i first read the headline through my bleary eyes, I thought it was a lame joke. No, it turns out it’s an elaborate joke by that same group of insane chuckleheads who thought that terrorist Yassir Arafat and slide-show scam artist Al Gore also deserved a Nobel Peace Prize.

I suspect we can solve the worlds energy crisis by ramming a big magnet up Alfred Nobel’s ass and wrapping him in coppr coils. At the rate in which he must be spinning in his grave, he should be able to generate several hundred terawatts at least.

Note that Prize nominations were closed on February fisrt. Obama took office on January 20. This means the Norwegian Nobel committee nominated him after he’d put in a whole dozen days in office. Does this make *any* sense?

 Posted by at 5:58 am
Oct 062009
 

So, you know how the current narrative is that Evil Private Health Insurance Companies are out to screw ya… taking your money then denying your claim when the time comes? And how Universal Health Care is gonna fix that little problem?

Ummmmmmm……

Medicare denies a higher percentage of claims than the other insurers listed (though not a much higher rate than Aetna), and at about double the rate of most of ’em.

Just wait until the government has *complete* control of the health care industry. That’ll be awesome.

 Posted by at 4:53 pm
Oct 062009
 

Yesterday Obama had a group of a hundred and fifty or so doctors listen in rapt attention to him in the Rose Garden as he blathered forth about “health care reform.” OK, so these weren’t a “broad cross-section” of American doctors, but instead a leftist special interest group (“Doctors for America,” formerly known as “Doctors for Obama” until spring ’09). Rather than “grass roots,”this would be that “astroturf” Nacy Pelosi mentions. Sort of Medi-Turf, I suppose. But ok, fine, Obama preached to the choir. Perfectly normal sort of political theater for a politician. But where this turned into theater of the absurd was that the majority of the doctors in the photo-op were wearing white lab coats.

I’ve been to many doctors over the years, as most people have. And for the most part, doctors *haven’t* worn lab coats when I’ve gone to see them… just regular clothes. Conversely, I myself commonly wore a lab coat back when I was an actual rocket engineer (sigh…) and working with propellants and such… but I *didn’t* wear my lab coat when away from work. So it seemed odd that this group of 150 doctors all decided to show up looking like they weren’t real doctors, but they play one on TV.

But as it turns out, the docs didn’t all just spontaneously decide to wear their lab coats. The White House told them to. And more, for those who forgot, the White House had a stash on hand, and handed them out to the docs who dared to fail to wear the days selected uniform.

From the NY Post:

The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.

But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.

So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.

Now, is this some sign of evil intent? No. What it is, however, is yet another example of PR bungling on the part of a WHite House that seems more interested in form than function… but can’t figure out how to get the form to function.

 Posted by at 4:19 pm
Oct 052009
 

Oh, this is just awesomeness on a stick. According to the Telegraph:

President Barack Obama has refused to meet the Dalai Lama in Washington this week in a move to curry favour with the Chinese.

The decision came after China stepped up a campaign urging nations to shun the Tibetan spiritual leader.

It means Mr Obama will become the first president not to welcome the Nobel peace prize winner to the White House since the Dalai Lama began visiting Washington in 1991.

And of course there’s this:

Mr Obama has changed his position on Tibet since his election campaign.

In April 2008, he was joined by Hillary Clinton, then his rival for the Democratic nomination and now his Secretary of State, in calling on George W Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony in protest at the bloody repression of a popular uprising in Tibet.

I’ve no particular fondness for the Dalai Lama. But I do know that the Chinese Communists – in fact, all Communists – suck. I also know that the far Left, Obamas most loyal fanbase, revere the Dalai Lama. The repurcussions of this could be entertaining, to say the least.

freetibet.jpg
At least one person in the article well and truly Gets It:

Sophie Richardson, Asia advocate for Human Rights Watch, said: “Presidents always meets the Dalai Lama and what happens? Absolutely nothing.

“This idea that if you are nice to the Chinese Communist Party up front you can cash in later is just wrong. If you lower the bar on human rights they will just move it lower and lower.”

 Posted by at 7:48 pm
Oct 032009
 

Obama got his ass handed to him by the IOC. He didn’t just fail, he failed spectacularly. Let me put it this way: if he had gone to the IOC dressed like a crack-whore Hollywood transexual prostitute, bitch-slapped the lot of them and then taken a dump on their table right in front of CNNs cameras, he wouldn’t have lost things for Chicago (and for those in the Chicago political machine to whom he owes his career) any worse than he actually did.

OK, but *why* did he fail? Some Danish newspaper articles on the topic are linked (and Google-translated, with some odd results), here:

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/789#

 Hans Bonde, professor of sport history at the University of Copenhagen, told the newspaper: “Here come the more favor Obama just before the deadline and made showoff. He clearly won the battle in the media, but it turned out indeed to be indifferent. IOC members did not feel important, and they were indeed reduced to spectators and not players. So if he had come, he would have had time for a personal lubricant.

Well, sure. Obviously.

 Posted by at 5:50 pm
Oct 022009
 

Chicago got eliminated in the first round of voting. Chicago got the *least* number of votes. Apparently the Cult of Obama is not as wide-reaching as the Obamists would like it to be.

epicfail.jpg
Watch the CNN anchor go bonkers.

———————————–

Obama’s Olympic failure will only add to doubts about his presidency

Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance.

—————————————–

Let the excuse-making and finger-pointing begin!

Disappointed White House Struggles to Explain Chicago’s Defeat

Axelrod blamed the internal machinations of the International Olympic Committee for the rejection. He argued that the bid by Madrid was led by a former president of the IOC, who was calling in years’ worth of favors, and that Rio de Janeiro, trying to become the first South American host, had a strong case as well.

The IOC ended up choosing Rio to host the 2016 Summer Games.

“I don’t view this as a repudiation of the president or the first lady,” he said. “I think there are politics everywhere, and there were politics inside that room.”

————————————- THE EGO HAS LANDED
WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND

————————————-

Rahm Emanuel: Olympic critics get seats

And even as the president and First Lady Michelle Obama were leaving Copenhagen this morning following their appeal to the International Olympic Committee, the Republican National Committee was circulating an email complaining of the White House’s “wrong priorities” (see that below the fold.) The RNC chairman today, chiding the president for “verbal gymnastics” in Copenhagen, noted the newest numbers on rising unemployment back home (see below as well.)

Rahm Emanuel, the Chicagoan who is chief of staff for Obama, has an answer: “You know, we’ll make sure they get some good seats once Chicago does host the games.”

<> Ooops. 

———————————

ooops.jpg

 Posted by at 2:25 pm