I enjoyed the Iowa Caucus, and even the results, because I wasn't looking at it as "I really want this guy to win" or "I really want this guy eliminated," as much as I felt like any of them would be an infinitely better leader that the pathetic excuse currently occupying the White House.
Would that that headline were so, it'd be a relatively easy fight. And make no mistake, that's exactly the nuts and bolts of this coming election: Obama wins and America dies. End of story.
But the headline isn't true, or at least it isn't complete. More accurately, it should read: America vs. Obama and His Fawning Media. Because with only a modicum of objectivity, Big Media would be all over the combined malfeasance and ineptitude of this administration.
Fred Barnes, in The Weekly Standard, says there will be six more televised debates by the end of January. Add four more by the end of March, already scheduled. In order, those debates come courtesy of ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, NBC, CNN, CNN, CNN, NBC, and PBS.
Yikes.
With the obvious possible exception of Fox News, don't you honestly expect the moderators' questions to be geared toward emphasizing the individual faults of the candidates, and stirring the slightest antipathy between them, rather than any of their comparitive strengths vs Obama? The only way their candidate (The One) stands a chance is if they continue promoting his narrative. That is, they'll ask questions that paint the candidates (and GOP) in the worst possible light in order to avoid any light at all hitting their guy.
Here's a list of ten questions I wish they'd ask (or I would ask, given the opportunity):
Let's go straight down the line with 10 seconds for each candidate. Off the top of your head, if you count being Senator of Illinois as one, and President as the other, how many MORE jobs have you actually had in your lifetime than Obama's two?
Which do you think is a more egregious offense, experimentally implementing Romneycare as a trial balloon solution in a very liberal state or forcing Obabamamacare down the throats of the entire nation, in spite of its heated opposition?
Follow-up question, show of hands...Which of you would, immediately upon being sworn in, grant waivers regarding Obamacare to all 50 states and begin working toward repealing it completely?
How many rounds of golf did you play last year, while you should/could have been working? Alternative question, how much vacation travel did you and your family enjoy last year at the expense of the American people?
If you and a Marine and Nancy Pelosi were all getting on an elevator, how many of you would still be standing when the elevator doors opened?
Could you envision your home congregation inviting the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright to deliver a guest sermon?
If Bill Ayers, George Soros, Cass Sundstein and Michelle Obama were all swept away in a flood, but you could save only one of them, would you A) order a pizza, or B) go to a movie?
Obama once said he'd convened a panel of experts to determine "whose ass to kick." What odds would you give each of your fellow candidates in a bare-knuckle match versus Obama? What odds would you give yourself?
Would you be in favor of waterboarding Eric Holder?
Pick any of the following and tell whether they would endorse you or Obama:
*Bin Laden
*George Washington
*Martin Luther King, Jr.
*Josef Stalin
*Adolph Hitler
*John Wayne
*Kim Jong Il
*Flight 93 passenger Tom Burnett, Jr
*Milton Friedman
*King Solomon
*King Leonidas
If asked to moderate any of those planned debates, I'll gladly see about moving some things around to make it happen. It'd be the best debate evah!
What question would you ask?
Showing posts with label michelle malkin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michelle malkin. Show all posts
Friday, January 6, 2012
Monday, November 2, 2009
And speaking of RINOs: Allahpundit
Not "Johnny come lately" actually, but Johnny won't STFU.
I've been following the Scozzafava/Hoffman/RNC wrangling and mostly just trying to maintain a sense of objectivity. It rankles me that folks out there could even elect the Snowes and Specters of the world, even simply knowing that they pose as one thing and behave as the opposite of that thing (and once we've witnessed any one person doing this, to any extent in our own lives, don't we stop trusting them?). But it troubles me far more that the Republican party continues to rhetorically and financially support these RINOs, based only upon the value of an "R" after their names.
I dropped in over at Hot Air this morning, to see if I could figure out what measure of justification Allahpundit had found for his support of the giant Mosque that desecrates the memory of the Flight 93 heroes. I didn't get that far, but I did read his report that Newt has decided to back Hoffman.
Newt.
It might have been a real story, Allahpundit, if Newt had said, "I've finally come to the realization that Dem-Lite, in the hearts and minds of honest Constitution-loving Americans, doesn't really mean Republican." Instead, bandwagon-Newt only wants to be on the winning side, pretending that anyone would even consider letting him drive the wagon. I won't call him a Johnny come lately, I call him irrelevant. And by your excuses for him, you appear to A) fail to recognize that fleeting relevance, and B) prove your own diminishing significance (or worse, your complicity).
Contrary to what Newt thinks (and what you think he thinks, Allahpundit), the strategic value of electing, or backing for election, a rabidly liberty-eating RINO like Scozzafava does nothing to help retake America from the Socialists and apologists and appeasers.
I didn't find anything that told me why you smeared Alec Rawls in support of the terrorists' memorial, but I found enough to show me which side you're not on. When Newt laid down with Gore and Sharpton and Scozzafava, I knew wherein his sympathies aligned. And with your defense of him, your inclinations are now abundantly clear, too. What troubles me, now, is what rationalization does MM have for for a continued association with you?
In a world where liberty and freedom are threatened on every side, a policy of going along to get along is akin to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
You called Newt her "most prominent Republican supporter." You should print a retraction/correction that clarifies thusly: Newt and Allahpundit are Scozzofava's biggest co-losers, and no repositioning at this point can't change that. To be sure, there was a prominent Republican who weighed in from Alaska, but the force of her stalwart support wasn't as laudable as Newt-come-lately's? Scozzofava quickly climbed into bed with her opponent(!) Owens, and you snuggle up with Newt. Birds of a feather.
News flash: Newt wasn't, and isn't, either prominent or Republican.
I've been following the Scozzafava/Hoffman/RNC wrangling and mostly just trying to maintain a sense of objectivity. It rankles me that folks out there could even elect the Snowes and Specters of the world, even simply knowing that they pose as one thing and behave as the opposite of that thing (and once we've witnessed any one person doing this, to any extent in our own lives, don't we stop trusting them?). But it troubles me far more that the Republican party continues to rhetorically and financially support these RINOs, based only upon the value of an "R" after their names.
I dropped in over at Hot Air this morning, to see if I could figure out what measure of justification Allahpundit had found for his support of the giant Mosque that desecrates the memory of the Flight 93 heroes. I didn't get that far, but I did read his report that Newt has decided to back Hoffman.
Newt.
It might have been a real story, Allahpundit, if Newt had said, "I've finally come to the realization that Dem-Lite, in the hearts and minds of honest Constitution-loving Americans, doesn't really mean Republican." Instead, bandwagon-Newt only wants to be on the winning side, pretending that anyone would even consider letting him drive the wagon. I won't call him a Johnny come lately, I call him irrelevant. And by your excuses for him, you appear to A) fail to recognize that fleeting relevance, and B) prove your own diminishing significance (or worse, your complicity).
Contrary to what Newt thinks (and what you think he thinks, Allahpundit), the strategic value of electing, or backing for election, a rabidly liberty-eating RINO like Scozzafava does nothing to help retake America from the Socialists and apologists and appeasers.
I didn't find anything that told me why you smeared Alec Rawls in support of the terrorists' memorial, but I found enough to show me which side you're not on. When Newt laid down with Gore and Sharpton and Scozzafava, I knew wherein his sympathies aligned. And with your defense of him, your inclinations are now abundantly clear, too. What troubles me, now, is what rationalization does MM have for for a continued association with you?
In a world where liberty and freedom are threatened on every side, a policy of going along to get along is akin to arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
You called Newt her "most prominent Republican supporter." You should print a retraction/correction that clarifies thusly: Newt and Allahpundit are Scozzofava's biggest co-losers, and no repositioning at this point can't change that. To be sure, there was a prominent Republican who weighed in from Alaska, but the force of her stalwart support wasn't as laudable as Newt-come-lately's? Scozzofava quickly climbed into bed with her opponent(!) Owens, and you snuggle up with Newt. Birds of a feather.
News flash: Newt wasn't, and isn't, either prominent or Republican.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
You are irrelevant
My good friend Denise, the high-priestess of the church of chocolate, tipped me to this video.
If and when you come to the conclusion that your elected representatives no longer listen to you (their employers) nor abide by their very own rules, are you content to wait for election time to roll back around when you'll then be able to vote (a vote which may or may not even count) to kick them out?
Here, you have Murtha abusing his power as Chairman in recognizing a very questionable (to say the least) vote count (in committee) as definitive, in spite of vocal disagreement, and refusing parliamentary challenges to his presumed authority to do so: "The Chair's decision is not subject to question." Recently, you've also seen a Congressman tell a constituent (his constituent!) that no one was going to tell him how to run his Congressional office. Town Hall meetings are being held over the telephone as a manner of controlling waves of dissenting public opinion. Would-be funny guy Al Franken was the beneficiary of crooked vote-counting (and re-counting and re-counting) until enough votes for him were "found" and his election then quickly certified (need I tell you which party was in charge of this fiasco?). And on and on.
Are you satisfied that your one vote is enough? Have you pierced the MSNBC-induced stupor of your friends and neighbors with some harsh truth? Have you bothered to tell your congressperson that you're sick of being labeled a racist for simply not knuckling under? Or, are you sharpening your own pitchfork, yet?
In light of, count them with me now, five sting-operation videos where ACORN advocates are seen and heard providing guidance toward setting up child-smuggling-and-prostitution houses, working to help fund the operation, giving tax advice, offering to aid said smuggling, and admitting to other crimes...and not even batting an eyelash, you haven't heard (except some efforts to discredit the reporters-Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles) any contributions from the ostrich media. In a world where every conceivable outlet scrambles to climb on the bandwagon and steal the thunder of any 'scoop' it's always: "Get me the local angle, dammit!" we're left with, instead...crickets.
Oh wait...stop the presses. We do have Jon Stewart:
Criminal conspiracy is not out of the ordinary for these folks, but an absolutely ingrained character trait. And now, the White says it wants to distance itself from ACORN. As Michelle says, "Obama can no more disown ACORN than he can his own shadow... He is ACORN, and ACORN is him." Furthermore, ACORN made Obama who he is, and he made them who they are. These are people who do not have a Utopian vision for America, but a vile and destructive one. Do not let anyone tell you that their existence (O!Bummer's and ACORN's) is coincidental. These are people who wish to do you harm, and do harm to your liberty and freedom.
In her email, she said she didn't think I'd believe it, the video of Murtha. Well, the opposite is true. I do believe it. The Far Left has found itself in the perfect storm of unprecedented power. They're acting in their own interests with impunity, and not only do I believe it, but I expect it. I fear the results, here at home and also abroad.
And I worry that my countrymen, hypnotized in their ignorance by ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, & MSNBC, do not fear those effects enough.
If and when you come to the conclusion that your elected representatives no longer listen to you (their employers) nor abide by their very own rules, are you content to wait for election time to roll back around when you'll then be able to vote (a vote which may or may not even count) to kick them out?
Here, you have Murtha abusing his power as Chairman in recognizing a very questionable (to say the least) vote count (in committee) as definitive, in spite of vocal disagreement, and refusing parliamentary challenges to his presumed authority to do so: "The Chair's decision is not subject to question." Recently, you've also seen a Congressman tell a constituent (his constituent!) that no one was going to tell him how to run his Congressional office. Town Hall meetings are being held over the telephone as a manner of controlling waves of dissenting public opinion. Would-be funny guy Al Franken was the beneficiary of crooked vote-counting (and re-counting and re-counting) until enough votes for him were "found" and his election then quickly certified (need I tell you which party was in charge of this fiasco?). And on and on.
Are you satisfied that your one vote is enough? Have you pierced the MSNBC-induced stupor of your friends and neighbors with some harsh truth? Have you bothered to tell your congressperson that you're sick of being labeled a racist for simply not knuckling under? Or, are you sharpening your own pitchfork, yet?
In light of, count them with me now, five sting-operation videos where ACORN advocates are seen and heard providing guidance toward setting up child-smuggling-and-prostitution houses, working to help fund the operation, giving tax advice, offering to aid said smuggling, and admitting to other crimes...and not even batting an eyelash, you haven't heard (except some efforts to discredit the reporters-Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Giles) any contributions from the ostrich media. In a world where every conceivable outlet scrambles to climb on the bandwagon and steal the thunder of any 'scoop' it's always: "Get me the local angle, dammit!" we're left with, instead...crickets.
Oh wait...stop the presses. We do have Jon Stewart:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
Criminal conspiracy is not out of the ordinary for these folks, but an absolutely ingrained character trait. And now, the White says it wants to distance itself from ACORN. As Michelle says, "Obama can no more disown ACORN than he can his own shadow... He is ACORN, and ACORN is him." Furthermore, ACORN made Obama who he is, and he made them who they are. These are people who do not have a Utopian vision for America, but a vile and destructive one. Do not let anyone tell you that their existence (O!Bummer's and ACORN's) is coincidental. These are people who wish to do you harm, and do harm to your liberty and freedom.
In her email, she said she didn't think I'd believe it, the video of Murtha. Well, the opposite is true. I do believe it. The Far Left has found itself in the perfect storm of unprecedented power. They're acting in their own interests with impunity, and not only do I believe it, but I expect it. I fear the results, here at home and also abroad.
And I worry that my countrymen, hypnotized in their ignorance by ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, & MSNBC, do not fear those effects enough.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Cockroaches scurry under Malkin's bright light
You've gotta love Michelle Malkin. Listening to her, you get calm rational logic. But pay attention also to the so-called hosts of these shows. It should come as no surprise that Matt Lauer and the ladies from The View are blind, mindless disciples of the O!Bummer messiah. See how they (especially the one named Joy, I think) spit bile when Malkin says unfavorable things about the Big Zero's top-to-bottom infestation of cheats, crooks and cronies in the administration. Watch her disgust as she says, "...every broken promise: transparency, accountability, ethics...failing to deliver" and then squirming in their seats to interject and derail. Listen to Whoopie a time or two and see if her "question" even sounds like a question. See if you can easily substitute the phrase, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to displace what you're saying with nonsense, or so our audience members don't hear everything you say, you heretic."
First, get some of this...
Then go check out how she lays waste to Lauer. I love his "she just completely ate my lunch" look as he says, "lot of comments there, this is Today and we'll be back."
But in the 2nd half of the Lauer video, Krauthammer unifies the entire point: Obama's campaign led so many of the middle-ground voters to believe that his presidency would transcend the muck and mire and general bullshit that we've come to expect from politicians...that there would be a genuineness and wholesomeness in the White House, and that what we've gotten instead is perhaps the most corrupt and dispicable administration in history, and precisely the loathing of America preached by Reverend Wright.
Lauer said at one point, "He (meaning Obama) hasn't gotten to where he has today by being a 'racial opportunist' has he?" Well yeah, Matt. That's exactly why.
First, get some of this...
Then go check out how she lays waste to Lauer. I love his "she just completely ate my lunch" look as he says, "lot of comments there, this is Today and we'll be back."
But in the 2nd half of the Lauer video, Krauthammer unifies the entire point: Obama's campaign led so many of the middle-ground voters to believe that his presidency would transcend the muck and mire and general bullshit that we've come to expect from politicians...that there would be a genuineness and wholesomeness in the White House, and that what we've gotten instead is perhaps the most corrupt and dispicable administration in history, and precisely the loathing of America preached by Reverend Wright.
Lauer said at one point, "He (meaning Obama) hasn't gotten to where he has today by being a 'racial opportunist' has he?" Well yeah, Matt. That's exactly why.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Michelle Malkin rocks
If you are, or think you might be, supportive of the current administration's efforts regarding health-care reform, or even if you're somehow naive enough to believe that their motives might not be purely evil, then you should consider reading Ms. Malkin's report linked herewith. Also, if you think the Obamination and Ol' Miss Stink-eye are above the fray, be sure to read about her "patient-dumping" chicanery.
If a tingly-legged sensation gets you through the day toward your evening fix of spoon-fed moonbattery via the mainstream news networks, and you've been known to cringe at the thought of anyone being critical of the Great Eunuch in Chief (I got that from MataHarley--Flopping Aces-- this morning), then you'd better not read the entire essay. But if you have an open mind, and I promise not to say I told ya so, and wouldn't mind seeing those dots of intentional corruption perfectly connected, then please treat yourself to her essay, of which I submit this sample:
I have my own personal distaste for the current state of healthcare dysfunction, namely, the general passing-the-buck, lack of accountability between the providers and insurers, with patients chewed up in the middle. But, government at it's best, even if there weren't any associated corruption, is not the answer. Thanks, but no thanks...At what point shall the rest of you agree that this federal government has over-reached in pushing its influence and control onto your lives?
If a tingly-legged sensation gets you through the day toward your evening fix of spoon-fed moonbattery via the mainstream news networks, and you've been known to cringe at the thought of anyone being critical of the Great Eunuch in Chief (I got that from MataHarley--Flopping Aces-- this morning), then you'd better not read the entire essay. But if you have an open mind, and I promise not to say I told ya so, and wouldn't mind seeing those dots of intentional corruption perfectly connected, then please treat yourself to her essay, of which I submit this sample:
Why do they want Obamacare? An internal ACORN memo I obtained from August 2008 makes the motives clear. “Over our 38 years, health care organizing has never been a major focus either nationally or locally for ACORN,” wrote ACORN Philadelphia region director Craig Robbins. “But increasingly, ACORN offices around the country are doing work on health care.” The goal: “Building ACORN Power.” The memo outlines the ACORN/HCAN partnership and strategy of opposing any programs that rely on “unregulated private insurance” – and then parlaying political victory on government-run health care “to move our ACORN agenda (or at least part of it) with key electeds that we might otherwise not be able to pull off.”
The objective, in other words, is to piggyback and exploit Obamacare to improve and protect their political health. The “grass-roots” movement is not about representing Main Street. It’s about peddling influence and power on 1825 K Street.
I have my own personal distaste for the current state of healthcare dysfunction, namely, the general passing-the-buck, lack of accountability between the providers and insurers, with patients chewed up in the middle. But, government at it's best, even if there weren't any associated corruption, is not the answer. Thanks, but no thanks...At what point shall the rest of you agree that this federal government has over-reached in pushing its influence and control onto your lives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)