UPDATED: Reid: Can you believe that the House is taking the weekend off?
UPDATES BELOW.
Says the guy whose chamber hasn’t produced a budget resolution in 800+ days? Seriously?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) criticized the House of Representatives for taking the weekend off, saying it painted a “very bad picture” for debt negotiations.
“Let me get this off my chest,” he said on the Senate floor Thursday morning. “I just heard there is an announcement in the House of Representatives that they are taking the weekend off.”
“I think this is a very bad picture to have the House out this weekend when we have to likely wait for them to send us something, because as I understand the negotiations taking place deal with revenues which constitutionally have to start in the House,” said Reid.
“I think it is just untoward,” continued Reid. “That’s the kindest work I can say… What a bad picture.”
So Reid hasn’t done his d#mned job in a turtle’s age, and Boehner is the slacker? I guess it’s lost on Reid that the House has sent two bills to the Senate to address the fiscal crisis: The Ryan plan and the Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan. The former was voted down, and the latter will likely be voted down later today (not yet as of the time of this writing). The House has sent not one, but two proposals, and the Senate has proposed nothing…and the House is derelict in its duties?
Thanks, NV, for sending this senile old jack#ss back to the Senate.
UPDATE (7/22/2011 – 11:56 AM ET): Oh, boy, this gets even richer! Reid complained that the House (which, I remind you, passed two bills dealing with this) is adjourning for the weekend, rather than sticking around in the rare event that a debt deal is reached. And now Reid’s chamber (for those of you on the left, that would be the Senate) has just taken off for the weekend! Hey, Harry: does your Senate mailing it in mean that you and your colleagues are “just untoward”? 
Hannity to Juan Williams: Man, that Eric Cantor sure is abdicating responsibility, isn’t he?
Ouch! Friends really shouldn’t bait each other like that, Sean.
Night and Day, “Obama and political rhetoric” edition
You gotta admit, 24 hours is quite a quick turnaround on hypocrisy, no? From NRO:
President Obama, yesterday: “I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on Thursday so we can build on the work that’s already been done and drive towards a final agreement. It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door.”
President Obama, today: “The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.”
Wondering where all of the leftist blowhards are who had a conniption over gun-related rhetoric after the Giffords shooting?
Night and Day, “Obama on raising taxes in a recession” edition
Obama today: Raising taxes on businesses and “the rich” are needed to fight the deficit I created.
Obama in 2009? Not quite the same thing:
In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”
Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”
…
Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”
…
Obama made a similar argument in December, when he signed the bipartisan tax relief agreement – a deal that maintained Bush tax rates (even for the wealthy) and included additional tax breaks for businesses. “Millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades – freeing up other money to hire new workers.”
Stephen Hayes asks what I am wondering:
If Obama was right and the tax breaks in that deal freed up money for job creators to hire new workers, isn’t the reverse true? Isn’t it the case that new taxes on entrepreneurs and other job creators will leave them with less money to hire new workers? And wouldn’t raising taxes on the “wealthiest” just “put business further in a hole,” as Obama believed just two years ago?
His economics were right. So why the change?
I always got a kick out of that line of thinking. “Tax increases harm the economy. Since the economy sucks right now, we don’t need to harm it further. But once the economy recovers, THEN it’s a good time to harm the economy!”
When it comes to economics, ObaMao rides the short bus.
Night and Day, “Bloomberg’s definition of nanny state NYC” edition
NYC mayor Bloomberg on why gay marriage in NY is a good thing:
In voicing his support for same-sex marriage, Mayor Bloomberg has mentioned — and appeared with — his niece Rachel, who is lesbian. “It brings it home,” he told me on the phone this week, though he added that beyond his desire for her to have everything she wants in life, “Government should not tell you what to do unless there’s a compelling public purpose.” He sees no such purpose in blocking same-sex marriage.
Always the supporter of individual liberty, that Bloomberg! Some of the “compelling public purposes” with which Bloomberg thinks that NYC should concern itself:
Banning things, or trying to, is what the [NYC] council does best.
Here’s the list from 2006.
- Trans-fats.
- Aluminum baseball bats.
- The purchase of tobacco by 18- to 20-year-olds.
- Foie gras.
- Pedicabs in parks.
- New fast-food restaurants (but only in poor neighborhoods).
- Lobbyists from the floor of council chambers.
- Lobbying city agencies after working at the same agency.
- Vehicles in Central and Prospect parks.
- Cell phones in upscale restaurants.
- The sale of pork products made in a processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., because of a unionization dispute.
- Mail-order pharmaceutical plans.
- Candy-flavored cigarettes.
- Gas-station operators adjusting prices more than once daily.
- Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.
- Wal-Mart.
More:
If you had to think of one city on earth where the rulers should not try to impose a standard of ‘good behaviour’, it would surely be New York. Who in their right mind would seek to sanitise this concrete jungle, to sedate the city that never sleeps, to demand conformism and obedience from the inhabitants of a place which, in the words of a popular tourist T-shirt, is known as ‘New York F**kin’ City’?
You’d be surprised. New York is currently governed by a gaggle of health-obsessed bigwigs who believe they have a duty to grab New Yorkers by the scruffs of their outsized necks and drag them towards lives of bicycle-riding, non-smoking, booze-avoiding, fruit-snacking conformity. City Hall, under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is awash with that new breed of psycho-politician known as the ‘nudger’, who believes that he has the right to use psychological techniques and brute censorship to manipulate and ‘improve’ human behaviour.
The Bloombergers have become world-beaters in the banning of public smoking and the demonisation of junk food. It is testament to their successful colonisation of these islands that the banning of smoking in all public parks, pedestrian plazas and beaches passed without incident, and even without much angry commentary, on 24 May. Under the Smoke Free Air Act (it is clever, in an Orwellian kind of way, to use the word ‘free’ in an act of law that diminishes freedom), New Yorkers can no longer light up in Central Park, Prospect Park, the Brooklyn Promenade, the Coney Island concrete walk or even Times Square, that flashing, noisy advertisers’ paradise where you can still watch naked cowboys play guitar and buy Sarah Palin condoms from streetsellers — so long as you don’t puff on a ciggie at the same time. ‘Where can I smoke now?’ one New Yorker said to a newspaper. ‘In an underground fortress of shame?’
…
Not content with policing what New Yorkers puff, the Bloombergers want to control what they scoff, too. City Hall banned the frying of food in transfats in all restaurants in 2007, which was bad news for those of us for whom half the attraction of visiting NYC was to tuck into the deliciously unhealthy fare served up in its diners. And in 2008, the city forced all chain restaurants and foodsellers to publish the calorific information of their food, in the same-sized font as the label for the food itself. Walking down Fifth Avenue, I saw a huge poster in a Burger King window advertising two burgers for the price of one, alongside an equally huge notice saying: ‘1320 CALORIES.’ Even the temporary stalls that hawk hot dogs and ice-cream in Central Park and elsewhere display calorific facts. That salted pretzel you buy as you stroll back to your hotel (‘500 CALORIES’) now comes with a side order of inner turmoil and gym fantasies.
So, if you’re a homosexual in great shape who wants to wed his beau, NYC wants to “live and let live” with you. If you’re an overweight straight guy who wants to buy cigs and HoHos from Wal Mart, you can look forward to the heavy hand of Nanny York City crushing you…for your own good and for the “compelling public purpose” of New Yorkers.
Gore, father of four, favors “fertility management” to combat junk science fad known as global “warming”
I guess since his kids managed to escape their mother’s womb alive, it’s totally important now for “fertility management”. Rather misogynist, no?
Quote of the day, “Obama the post-partisan” edition
Quoth Teh Won:
“If you were looking for a bunch of partisan rhetoric, I’m probably not your guy,” President Obama said at a fundraiser in Miami.
Says the same jackwagon who said this about the Paul Ryan deficit plan?
“Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.”
The same guy who, while Hispandering, said this?
“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”
Really? That guy?
And now…Weiner has an ACTUAL Chris Lee moment!
The leftists who have been trying to say that former Congressman Chris Lee (R-NY), who resigned in disgrace after sending shirtless photos of himself to women on Craigslist, was WAY worse than Weiner showing his namesake to college girls? Yeah, I guess we’re going to have to call them on this one:
BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com have reported throughout the morning about the emergence of new details in the Weinergate saga, after a young woman came forward with new information that tends to undermine severely the theory that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”
The following photograph, reminiscent of that posted by former Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) on Craigslist earlier this year, was allegedly sent to the young woman on Friday, May 20, 2011 via a Yahoo! email address that she claims was an alternate alias for Rep. Weiner.
A photo is at the link (as is the infamous photo of his underwear-covered woodrow).
Chris Lee (R-NY), sends photos of his shirtless self to women to whom he’s not married, forced to resign in disgrace.
Anthony Weiner (D-NY), sends photos of his shirtless self AND of his bratwurst to women to whom he’s not married, is…defended vigorously by the reprobates on the left?
Prediction: Call me naive, but I actually don’t think he politically survives this. I smell a resignation within a couple of weeks, lest Andrew Breitbart release more dirt on this scumbag. And apparently, there is much, MUCH more than this to come.
BREAKING: A second woman is coming forth with allegations of photos, chats, e-mails of Weiner’s weiner
Still gonna ride that “I was hacked/pranked” pony, Weiner? From Big Breitbart:
A new woman has come forward with what she claims are photographs, chats, and emails with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). These appear to undermine severely Rep. Weiner’s explanations that he was the victim of a “prank” or a “hack.”
The detailed new information suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs.
At least Debbie Whatshername-Schmuck is taking the high road. Nah, I’m just effing with you:
Legal Insurrection recalls when Debs was a little more concerned with such debauchery:
Well, that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should really get acquainted with this Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:This goes beyond Rep. Foley, it goes to the values of the Congressional leadership. These are not family values, these are not American values.
What was Wasserman-Schultz referring to in that 2006 quote? The behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL . . . are you watching those party labels?), who made advances towards 18 and 21 year old young men.In fact, she went as far as to demand the resignation of then Speaker Denny Hastert for not addressing the Foley matter quickly enough:What I’ve called for is an investigation to be completed within 10 days. And quite honestly, yes, I do think that Denny Hastert should resign . . . I‘d like to see the Republican caucus call upon their leadership, Speaker Hastert, Majority Leader Boehner, to get this resolved quickly. Do it before the election. And I haven‘t heard them say that. They‘re saying have the FBI investigate, have the House Ethics Committee investigate. They need to push their leadership to get this resolved so that they can move on, and we can make sure that we can restore the trust that they have shaken the public in Congress.
Now there are obviously some major differences between the two cases, but a big part of Wasserman-Schultz’s complaint in 2006 was that Foley had not been previously sanctioned, despite evidence of a proclivity for hitting on much younger men.
…
You may have also heard from Wasserman-Schultz (if you’ve turned on a TV in the last two weeks) about her party’s “historic victory” in the NY-26 special election. Maybe she doesn’t remember that the special election wouldn’t have even been called if Republican leadership didn’t have the Craigslist congressman, Chris Lee, resign over his shirtless personal ad.
The Dems are still defending their vermin, as always.
Hypocrite DNC chief: Republicans want you to drive foreign cars…which, as luck would have it, I already drive
When she’s not humiliating herself in front of the Israeli prime minister, the new top moonbat Debbie Loserman Schmuck likes to spend her spare time exposing herself as a Class A hypocritical ditz. Details:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the chairwoman of the DNC, ripped into Republican presidential contenders who opposed President Obama’s 2009 bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler.
“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes,” she said at a breakfast for reporters organized by The Christian Science Monitor.
So she leads by example, right?
But according to Florida motor vehicle records, the Wasserman Schultz household owns a 2010 Infiniti FX35, a Japanese car whose parent company is Nissan, another Japanese company.
Snarks Doug Powers:
Don’t let this happen to you. Vote Democrat in 2012 so the Republicans can’t force you buy a foreign car. They’ve already gotten to the DNC Chair, but it’s not too late for the rest of America.
Heh.
Socialist Senator finds ONE good thing about capitalism: selling HIS OWN book!
We accuse many Democrats of being socialist in their philosophy and voting record, and rightly so. However, one Senator is an actual confessed, self-described socialist: Bernie Sanders of Vermont. To be fair, Sanders is officially an “independent”, but he caucuses with the Dems and votes with them nearly 100% of the time. Birds of a feather flock together, no?
With that in mind, savor the hypocrisy:
Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders is a different kind of socialist: the kind who will partake in the capitalist venture of freely exchanging money for products… at least when it comes to selling his own book.
The self-described socialist is out promoting his straight-to-paperback The Speech: A Historic Filibuster on Corporate Greed and the Decline of Our Middle Class, and was eager to sign and sell copies at corporate entities like Barnes & Noble in Washington, D.C.
Video clip at the link of Sanders confronted (at a book signing, no less) with his hypocrisy.
That’s one thing I notice about all American socialists: they sure think that socialism is superwickedawesome, so long as they aren’t expected to live under its gruesome grip.
CNN reports on Arnie sex scandal incident every hour, except one
Which hour would than be? Oh, just the 8:00 hour, which just so happens to be…Eliot Spitzer’s show:
Every hour but one of CNN’s Tuesday evening news coverage featured at least a mention of former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s marital infidelity. Guess which anchor backed away from any mention of the scandal?
Schwarzenegger’s revelation of his fathering a child with a mistress was one of the day’s leading headlines, and merited a mention if not a segment on most every CNN news hour Tuesday. During its 5 p.m.-12 a.m. EDT coverage, CNN reported the story every hour except during the 8 p.m. EDT slot – the prime-time show In the Arena with Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer made no mention of the story.
Spitzer was embroiled in a scandal of his own just three years ago as governor of New York. A federal wiretap linked him to a high-end prostitution ring, and he resigned his office abruptly after the news was made public.
I’m sure it was merely an editorial oversight.
Nope…no liberal media bias hypocrisy!
What Osama has been doing for the last decade
Islam: The religion of peace p0rn:
The pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.
Heh. Goats Gone Wild or Camels in Bondage?
Obama sycophant: Obama showed “as much courage as our Navy SEALs did” for ordering bin Laden strike
McQ illustrates how the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) are locked on to their talking points about Obama, specifically using the word “gutsy” in reference to BO’s decision to let the Navy SEALs take out Osama. You can tell the memo has circulated to keep parroting that word, and the left is obliging.
But dude, this one really takes the cake. If you’re prone to high blood pressure, you may want to cease reading this quote from former Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain. OK, you’ve been warned.
But he made that decision to go without telling Pakistan and that took some real courage, as much courage as our Navy SEALs did in pulling off a near flawless operation.
Notes McQ:
Yessiree Bob – not telling Pakistan was just as gutsy as flying into a foreign land, at night, nap of the earth, hoping no one sees your helicopter and blows it out of the sky. Then fast roping into a compound of hostiles, number unknown, engaging in a firefight and clearing it. Then exfiltrating. Yup, not telling Pakistan is just like that.
Telling the SEALs “go ahead” is exactly like personally risking life and limb (and possibly torture, if captured), isn’t it? Talking tough = being tough. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Interesting, since the left was fond of accusing Bush of alleged “cowardice” in sending soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan. Guess it’s not cowardice when a Marxist president orders a military operation, though, is it?
Night and Day, “Pelosi on bin Laden” edition
Queen Botox in 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.
Pe-lousy now:
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .
But it’s the Republicans that are politicizing OBL’s death, right?
Consistency, integrity, and shame are sooooooo passé!
US government: Protect the Koran at all costs, but torching the Bible is A-OK
The U.S. government under Barack Obama is deeply committed to battling any belittlement, criticism, or questioning of Islam. (“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States,” he said, “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”)
At the same time, however, it is OK, in the Obama regime [SEE BELOW FOR AN UPDATE], for the U.S. government to burn Bibles. Yes, that’s right. Bibles were sent to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. But the U.S. government determined that the presence of Bibles in this “devoutly Muslim country” might inflame the natives. So they burned them. Why did they burn them? Because it is military policy to burn its trash.
So, the Bibles, according to U.S. policy, are trash, garbage, and it’s OK to burn them.
When it comes to the Koran, however, an official Department of Defense memo specifies a rather different procedure. Item 4, “Handling”:
- Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling.
- Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.
Isn’t that nice? Handle it “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.” But burn the Bible because it is just part of your trash.
If jihadism doesn’t kill us, political correctness will.
I’m not worried. Why? Because I’m but a mere nomad on this mudball in this lifetime, biding my time until God calls me to my real and eternal Home. Those of you who aren’t so sure, though? Well, sucks for you.
Obama and Reid both admit their opposition a few years ago to raising debt limit was 100% political
Reid in 2006:
“Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?” Reid said on March 16, 2006. “Democrats won’t be making an argument to support this legalization, which will weaken our country.”
Apparently, “increasing our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors” and “weakening our country” are more acceptable these days. Reid today:
In an interview today on ABC’s “Top Line” with Jonathan Karl and Amy Walter, Reid said those comments were a mistake.
“I shouldn’t have done that. I’m kinda embarrassed I did. It was a political maneuver by we Democrats. The Republicans were in power – there were more of them,” Reid said. “The president voted when he was in the Senate the same way. I heard him apologize for it. We all should take a look at how we handle these issues, but that doesn’t take into consideration the numerous times, the numerous times I voted to raise the debt ceiling. The one time I tried to make a political issue of it, I wish I hadn’t.”
Obama in 2006: Raising the debt ceiling is bad, especially since Bush wants to do it. I’m gonna skip my usual “present” vote, and vote “no” this time.
Obama today (with a rather odd explanation/defense):
President Barack Obama on Thursday framed his opposition as a Senator to raising the nation’s debt ceiling as a “political vote” and said he is coming at the issue from a different approach as commander in chief.
“That was just an example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote, as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, according to a transcript of the interview.
Allah explains what Obama is trying to say with his defense of his prior position:
The crux of his defense: As president, you have to take these things seriously, but as a senator … not so much. And to think, some people during the ’08 campaign accused him of being inexperienced.
Heh.
It’s crystal clear, people: Democrats have switched positions on a critically important issue facing our country, and their switch is based on thoughful and critical analysis of the facts at hand the party of the current occupant of the Oval Office. How reassuring to know that their willingness to make the tough decisions that transcend party lines…um…doesn’t transcend party lines.
Remember when Democrats were anti-preemptive wars?
Good times, good times. From Matt Welch:
“We knew that…if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” the president said last night. “It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen….Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Do you remember when Democrats recoiled at the doctrine of preemptive war? Last night was the final reminder that, with the exception of some diehards like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Democrats when wielding power are only against Republican preemptive war. If anything, they are more promiscuous in choosing conflicts than their warmaking brethren on the other side of the aisle; just less likely to go all-in with ground troops. Does it satisfy the consciences of Bush-hating interventionists merely that Obama made more nice-sounding comments about subsuming America’s lead role within a United Nations-blessed coalition? And have they thought through even for one moment the kind of bar-lowering precedent they’re setting for the next Republican president to send ground troops into wherever the hell?
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Democrats where more interested in the party label of the Commander-in-Chief than they were in actual military objectives or national interest!
Welch finishes off the illogical imbeciles of the left thusly:
And for those Democrats who are either cheering on or grimly supporting the president’s actions, just remember this: Unless a Ron Paul-type miraculously emerges from the GOP field, the next Republican president now has an even lower bar than before when it comes to launching a preemptive war. There’s a reason why the biggest fans of last night’s speech were hawks like William Kristol: If you didn’t like Iraq, you really won’t like Iran. And when that day comes, please don’t debase yourselves by crying crocodile tears over the Constitution, or pretending for even one second you are anti-war.
I don’t know what Welch is worried about. It’s not like the left is a gang of hypocrites or inconsistent cretins, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was an example of sarcasm.
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell helpfully defines “Obama Doctrine”
Mitchell, referred to by Ace as the “executive fellatrix”, gives us some insight as to why Obama attacking Libya without Congressional approval is way different (and more proper) than Bush attacking Iraq with Congressional approval.
You know who doesn’t define the Obama Doctrine? The Obama administration. Nope, they allow this fellatrix to “report” that for them.
Anywho, here’s her summary, along with my notes:
1. “When you have a catastrophe you can avert”. That pretty much exists anywhere at any time, right?
2. “The benefits outweigh the costs”. That pretty much governs every decision a human makes, no? Duh.
3. “You have an international or multilateral support”. You know what she means, right? She means “the French support it.” Because to the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy), the Frogs are the object of their affection. After all, Bush had international and multilateral support in Iraq, except the Frogs were against it (probably a good thing, since it would have been embarrassing to see them surrendering to an Australian camera crew in Fallujah, wouldn’t it?). But hey, now the Frogs are helping in Libya, so it’s all good, right?
4) “Go for it.”
Apparently, if the first three conditions are met, then the president can “go for it” without Congressional approval, the Constitution be damned. Because the French are on board. So we’re good, thanks.
As for Mitchell: nope, no liberal media bias!
Weiner (D-NY): Say, how’s about an ObamaCare waiver for my constituents in NYC?
Deranged Congressman Anthony Weiner, a man who is in serious need of anger management classes, tries to defend requesting a waiver from the very legislation for which he so passionately fought in 2009. Open mouth and insert foot, Congressman Schlong:
Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.
Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.
“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”
…
The congressman was trying to debunk Republican “myths” about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how “this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people’s throats” is not true.“The administration needs to make this argument more forcefully,” he said. “A lot of people who got waivers were … people who are our friends.”
“Our friends”…you know, it really does pay to be an FOB (Friend Of Barack), doesn’t it. By logical extension, apparently the rest of America that resides outside of his district are enemies, right?
Typical liberal: Good enough for thee, but not for me!
Night and Day, “Howard Dean and military intervention in the Middle East” edition
What a difference a president’s party makes, huh? Turns out you can crap on the Constitution and get defended by many in your party, even if they look like the brazen, shameless, hypocritical scumbags that they are.
Here’s Howard Scream in 2003, when a Republican was looking to launch a military operation in the Middle East:
I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
…
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
Here’s Deano now, in 2011, with his bud Oba-Mao calling the shots (good stuff at the 7:18 mark of the video clip, with Klein calling him out on his hypocrisy at the 7:30 mark):
“I don’t think you stay out of these things”…”We have an interest in Libya.”
Funny that Dean whips out the discredited leftist talking points about “being lied to” with regards to Iraq. You know why that’s funny? Because Dean was leading the anti-war charge before military action began in Iraq, before he knew whether or not Saddam had any WMD’s, etc. in other words, he was a peacenik up front, but now he’s trying to say his 2003 opposition was based on errors/lies about WMD’s after the war began? That’s a damned lie, and Dean knows it. Luckily for Dean, it was on MSDNC, so only two people saw his lie as it happened.
Surreal, no?
Biden: Obama should be impeached for attacking Libya without Congressional approval
Well, that’s the logical extension of what he said in 2007. Observe:
Partial transcript:
Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.
Minor technicality: only the House can impeach a president, not the Senate (in which Biden was at the time of this statement). The Senate then votes on whether to remove the impeached president. Come on, Joe, Bubba’s Senate trial wasn’t that long ago, was it?
Let’s see: in 2007, Biden was still in the Senate and a Republican was in the White House. Biden thought, for some weird reason, that we might attack Iran, and if that attack were to come, it would come via the Republican president not consulting with Congress.
Fast forward to 2011. The Democrat president launched an attack on Libya without Congressional approval. So I’m sure that the Vice Plagiarist feels the exact same way, in order to remain consistent with his words from four years ago, right? Right?
Liberal blogger wonders: Why does the MSM ignore death threats against Wisconsin Republicans, and why does the rest of the left condone those threats?
I am about to break one of my own rules here by linking to the moonbat blog Huffington Post. I never link to the moonbat blogs, because they can generate their own traffic by trolling the dark, depraved cellars of mankind all by themselves. That said, this time merits an exception. Plus, it’s my blog, so I get to both make and break the rules here.
Undoubtedly, this guy will now be threatened for breaking Commandment #1 among the left: “Thou shalt not stray from the leftist plantation, either in philosophy or in conduct, lest ye be persecuted.” You must, must read the guy’s column! Here’s an excerpt:
Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?
Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren’t considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn’t just been one death threat, but a number of them.
[Examples here. Like I said, go read the column! - CL]
On the other hand, if you read conservative blogs or listen to conservative media, you know all about these threats because people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and websites like Newsbusters and BigJournalism have not only been talking about the death threats for days now but they’ve been talking about the mainstream and liberal media ignoring the threats for days.
Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It’s bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.
Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it’s stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn’t exaggerating — proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you’ve never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly et al have said about anything, you can’t in any good conscience say that they don’t have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.
He then goes on to make the case against public sector unions’ ability to collectively bargain by quoting the golden calf of the left: FDR! Ouch! He outlines the “bile and invective” he got from the left for doing this, which leads him to wonder:
Is this really what liberalism has come to in 2011? (Welcome to Realityville, pal. Liberal population here: 1. You’re all alone, dude. – CL)
Since working with Breitbart, my position on political issues hasn’t changed but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I’m deeply disappointed by the virulent, lockstep attitude I see on the left. My experience in the last few months tells me what I would not have believed possible; on any number of issues (including Pigford, by the way) I’ve seen liberals act much nastier and with less factual honesty than the conservatives… and this includes on issues where I disagree with conservatives.
Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.
I doubt that he and I agree on very much of anything. However, he is 100% dead on with this. The MSM is a friggin’ joke for its embargo of these threats, and the left is losing what shards of credibility they have remaining (which, if recent elections are any indicator, is damning). Kudos to one liberal for having the stones to say “Guys, can’t we for once be intellectually honest?”, even if his brethren answer with a resounding ”Not a chance, pal!”
Speaker who presided over a Congress that passed no budget: You know, a bunch of continuing resolutions is no way to be fiscally responsible!
And the freaks in San Fransicko keep sending this dolt back to Congress?
San Fran Nan and her ilk refused to pass a budget, one of the many reasons she is no longer House Speaker. Yet she complains that this is no way to fund the government? While I certainly agree with her (did I just say that?) that this is no way to fund the government, is she really the one who needs to have her botox-laden grill in front of the cameras to take this position?
Exit quote from Pe-loco: “Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility” Pfffffffffffffff-bwahahahahahahahaha!
Media embargo of death threats against Wisconsin Republicans
Newsbusters is all over it. Excerpt:
…Not taking this seriously were ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR. LexisNexis and closed-caption dump searches of “Wisconsin and ‘death threat’” produced zero results for these so-called news outlets throughout the month of March.
Zero.
When you compare this to the hysterical coverage of last year’s Tea Party rallies and town hall protests, where conservatives were regularly depicted as either hostile or fomenting violence, one has to wonder how actual death threats against sitting politicians would not be considered newsworthy.
This seems particularly curious after all the talk about hostile rhetoric immediately following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in January.
Now, less than two months later, actual death threats against politicians are being investigated in Wisconsin, and five major news outlets are boycotting the story.
Remember when the MSM linked (but didn’t really link, wink wink nudge nudge) the Tea Party and talk radio to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ)? Despite a total lack of any evidence or threats whatsoever, the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) blamed the right and bemoaned the alleged “lack of civility” and the “tone” of political discourse.
So how does the MSM report actual threats against Republican politicians? Crickets…chirping…
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Leftists: “Take back America” is racist. Or something.
Notice something here:
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem. In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said. A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to “take back” their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a “subterranean agenda” in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate.
So if “take back America” is racist, then how’s about a convention of bigots on the left where Obama has spoken TWICE?
Busted.
Hypocrisy and bigotry: crunchy and good with ketchup.
Boxer walks into global “warming” trap
Babs Boxer (Moonbat-CA) came up for air long enough to stop ranting about the GOP’s assassination plot against Elmo and walk directly into the trap set by Senators Barrasso (R-WY) and Inhofe (R-OK). These two reminded Babs and everyone else about how B.O.’s own “science technology advisor” warned us about the impending Ice Age in the 1970′s.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members sparred Wednesday over whether there existed a consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling.
During the hearing, Republican Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming questioned the supposed need to enact policies to combat global warming by pointing to similar predictions in the 1970s of a global cooling phenomenon.
The exchange started with Barrasso addressing the committee’s witness, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson. “Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” said Barrasso. “So if we had committed the same amount of taxpayer resources and government manpower that the administration now wants us to commit to prevent global warming — if we’d done that prevent global cooling, we wouldn’t be the most prosperous nation on earth.”
He continued: “The fact is that the same doomsday predictions we were getting 40 years is the exact same thing this agency and this administration today. Only now…the problem is man-made global warming.”
…
Still later, Inhofe got into the science debate by citing a 1971 study by Dr. John Holdren, who just so happens to be President Obama’s advisor on science technology. In that study Holdren wrote, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here.” Holdren went on to write that the effects could “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
A visibly satisfied Inhofe then turned to Boxer, and stated, “So even the president’s people are agreed with me, Madam Chairwoman!”
You mean there wasn’t consensus about global cooling in the late 1970′s, when the issue was featured prominently in various MSM outlets and on the front page of Time magazine? Huh. Could have sworn there was.
Watch this video clip and see how ol’ Babs (and her white knight Udall (D-NM)) beclowned themselves in front of the camera.
WI governor calls out Obama on hypocrisy over union benefits
Wanna see how draconian the federal public employees union is?
It will no doubt surprise you to learn that President Obama, the great patron of the working man, also happens to be the great CEO of one of the least union-friendly shop floors in the nation.
This is, after all, the president who has berated Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal to limit the collective bargaining rights of public employees, calling the very idea an “assault on unions.” This is also the president who has sicced his political arm, Organizing for America, on Madison, allowing the group to fill buses and plan rallies. Ah, but it’s easy to throw rocks when you live in a stone (White) house.
Fact: President Obama is the boss of a civil work force that numbers up to two million (excluding postal workers and uniformed military). Fact: Those federal workers cannot bargain for wages or benefits. Fact: Washington, D.C. is, in the purest sense, a “right to work zone.” Federal employees are not compelled to join a union, nor to pay union dues. Fact: Neither Mr. Obama, nor the prior Democratic majority, ever acted to give their union chums a better federal deal.
Scott Walker, eat your heart out.
What WI is proposing is to remove collective bargaining power for WI public employees’ benefits, not their wages…they would still be free to collectively bargain for those. Plus, WI is proposing an increase in WI public employees’ contributions to their own health care, a contribution level that is still worlds lower than that of federal employees unions.
In other words, WI isn’t being so cold as to ask their employees to emulate the federal employees union. Yet B.O. is asking the governor to stop villifying state employees?
So, Oba-Mao is being a hypocrite. No big shocker there, right? Well, how about a little red meat from WI Governor Scott Walker?
Gov. Scott Walker on Monday afternoon responded to comments President Barack Obama made earlier in the day about the protests in Madison:
Walker’s office issued this statement:
“I’m sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay. And I’m sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.
“Furthermore, I’m sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.
“I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isn’t acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.”
Heh.
NYT: Tea Party protests bad, union protests good
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear the New York Times is less interested in reporting and more interested in agenda-driving, even if they look hypocritical in the process. If I didn’t know any better, that is. From Jonathan Tobin:
In 2009 and 2010 the New York Times covered protests against the Obama administration’s stimulus spending bill and health care plan as the barely legal revolt of an unwashed and uncivil band of reactionaries determined not only to halt what the paper considered progress but also to thwart democracy. But anyone looking at the Times’ front page article on Saturday describing protests against the effort by Wisconsin’s newly elected governor and legislature to balance the state’s books got a very different view of a protest movement.
According to the Times, the activities of the Wisconsin public sector unions — whose expensive benefits have put their state on the brink of bankruptcy — are nothing less than the moral equivalent of the demonstrations in Tunisia that brought down an authoritarian dictatorship. As the headline “Wisconsin Leads the Way as Workers Fight Cuts” indicates, the whole focus of the piece is an effort to portray the unions and their Democratic allies as revolutionaries who are on the cutting edge of a movement that will, in effect, reverse the verdict of last year’s election.
Read the whole thing. It’s short, but he lays out the indictment against the Old Gray Hag quite nicely, including a video link contrasting liberal rhetoric vs. reality.
As for the NYT: Nope…no liberal media bias!
Laugher of the day: Obama claims to have not raised taxes
This one was such a knee-slapper that even Politifact (who ran interference for B.O. on ObamaCare) couldn’t pass it up:
“I didn’t raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years,” Obama said.
He’s trying to be Clintonesque here. He didn’t raise income taxes, but he sure as hell raised other taxes, despite the Vice-Plagiarist telling us during the campaign that O-blah-blah wasn’t going to raise any kind of taxes “not a dime”. Continuing:
The idea that Obama did not raise taxes is just plain wrong. He signed legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products soon after taking office; that money goes to pay for children’s health insurance programs. The law went into effect in 2009. He also signed the health care law, which includes taxes on indoor tanning that went into effect last year. (Regular PolitiFact readers will remember our fact-check of reality TV star Snooki and her complaint about the new tax last year.)
The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage. The tax phases in gradually, starting in 2014. By 2016, the tax would be $695 per uninsured person up to a maximum of three times that amount, or $2,085. The law includes exemptions for people who can’t find affordable insurance, and a few other special circumstances.
More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy, starting in 2013. Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent. They will also, for the first time, have to pay Medicare taxes on their investment income at a 3.8 percent rate. (Current law is that all workers and employers split a 2.9 percent Medicare tax; the self-employed pay all of it.)
O’Reilley asked Oba-Mao this question…
Do you deny that you are a man who wants to redistribute wealth?
…to which Chairman O replied “Absolutely.”
Yeah…not a “spread the wealth” guy:
Why, it’s almost as if the guy were a shameless liar or something!
-
Archives
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (20)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (17)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
