From the National Review Online.
"Barack Obama was supposed to be the best, the very best, and yet he is always, reliably, consistently mediocre. His speech on oil was no better or worse than his speech on race. Yet the Obammyboppers who once squealed with delight are weary of last year’s boy band. At the end of the big Oval Office address, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and the rest of the MSNBC gang jeered the president. For a bewildered Obama, it must have felt like his Ceausescu balcony moment. Had they caught up with him in the White House parking lot, they’d have put him up against the wall and clubbed him to a pulp with Matthews’s no longer tingling leg."
...
"To a fool, His Majesty’s new clothes appear absolutely invisible. But, to a wise man, the placing of buttons and pockets without indicating the relation of co-ordination is a fascinating exercise in parataxical couture."
...
"The Times’s Maureen Dowd deplored his “bloodless quality” and “emotional detachment.” This is the same Maureen Dowd who in 2009 hailed the new presidency with a column titled “Spock At The Bridge” — and she meant it as a compliment. Back then, this administration was supposed to be the new technocracy — cool, calm, and credentialed chaps who would sit down, use their mighty intellects to provide a rigorous, post-partisan, forensic analysis of the problem, and then break for their Vanity Fair photo shoot."
...
"Had Obama or his speechwriters chanced upon last week’s fishwrap, they might have noticed that I described the president as “the very model of a modern major generalist,” and they might have considered whether it might not be time to try something new."
...
"In the race speech, invited to address specific points about his pastor’s two-decade pattern of ugly anti-American rhetoric and his opportunist peddling of paranoid conspiracies to his gullible congregants about AIDS being invented by the U.S. government to wipe them out, Obama preferred to talk about race in general — you know, blacks, whites, that sort of thing; lot of it about. The media loved it. This time round, invited to address specific points about an unstoppable spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama retreated to more generalities — the environment, land, air, that sort of thing; lot of it about. “President Obama said he is going to use the Gulf disaster to push a new energy bill through Congress,” observed Jay Leno. “How about using the Gulf disaster to fix the Gulf disaster?”
...
"So the president has now declared war on the great BP spill — Gulf War 3! — and in this epic conflict the speechgiver-in-chief will surely be his own unmanned drone:
“I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin’
Twice as many barrels as there was a month ago,
I fired off a speech
But the British kept a-spillin’
Up the Mississippi from the Gulf of Mexico . . .”
Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented an Obama that doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, they’re stuck with the one that does, and it will be interesting to see whether he’s capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?"
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Obama Signs Comprehensive U.S.-Utopia Agreement
From Optoons. It's a cartoon--you have to go there to see it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Victory Over Obama, Inflation, and Taxes to Come
From me.
The relevant bit: "Go ahead, Obama, try to tax me and inflate me into oblivion. You may get the money, but you can't tax the garden, or my labors in it! The pantry has already been taxed (at much lower rates), and you can't tax it again. Everything's paid for but the house, and soon, it too will be paid for, leaving only Hubby's income vulnerable to you. I'll just have to look for more shelters--that's the easy part. I cut MY spending to the lowest I care to go, and pretty much Obama-proofed myself, now how about YOU and GOVERNMENT doing the same?
Since you can't infringe on states' taxing authority, I'm already declaring victory in this brewing war you're bringing. Now you can see how even your own wife is circumventing your clever tax plans with her own garden, and spreading the wealth to future generations with her campaign of garden encouragement to curb kid obesity. She's also circumventing your plan to get healthy people into your health insurance game--they'll be too healthy for insurance, and will just pay the penalty!
Gardening helped to bring down Hitler and Stalin, and it will help to bring you down, too. Best of all, there's damned little you can do about it, short of dropping a bomb in my back yard, or sending black-trench coated goons over one night to dig everything up. But alas, I have property rights, and can sue!
I hope you can run a rototiller. That'll be what I'm asking for in damages--you PERSONALLY coming over every spring to rototill my garden...you know, the scene of the crime."
I'm thinking every April 15th would be a good day, unless it's raining.
The relevant bit: "Go ahead, Obama, try to tax me and inflate me into oblivion. You may get the money, but you can't tax the garden, or my labors in it! The pantry has already been taxed (at much lower rates), and you can't tax it again. Everything's paid for but the house, and soon, it too will be paid for, leaving only Hubby's income vulnerable to you. I'll just have to look for more shelters--that's the easy part. I cut MY spending to the lowest I care to go, and pretty much Obama-proofed myself, now how about YOU and GOVERNMENT doing the same?
Since you can't infringe on states' taxing authority, I'm already declaring victory in this brewing war you're bringing. Now you can see how even your own wife is circumventing your clever tax plans with her own garden, and spreading the wealth to future generations with her campaign of garden encouragement to curb kid obesity. She's also circumventing your plan to get healthy people into your health insurance game--they'll be too healthy for insurance, and will just pay the penalty!
Gardening helped to bring down Hitler and Stalin, and it will help to bring you down, too. Best of all, there's damned little you can do about it, short of dropping a bomb in my back yard, or sending black-trench coated goons over one night to dig everything up. But alas, I have property rights, and can sue!
I hope you can run a rototiller. That'll be what I'm asking for in damages--you PERSONALLY coming over every spring to rototill my garden...you know, the scene of the crime."
I'm thinking every April 15th would be a good day, unless it's raining.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Overheard on Fox News last night...
Currently, the government definition of "poor" is what you own relative to what you make. Obama wants to change that to "what you own relative to what your neighbors own."
Pure-D socialism. Spread the electronic wealth.
I have to laugh, though--around here, I'm the "rich guy" because I'm surrounded by retirees. Does this mean Obama's going to even out their playing field by funding an extra car, high-speed internet, a computer, satellite TV, a pantry full of food, and a carport full of firewood just because I have them?
Does this man he's going to fund a flat-screen TV, DVR, Playstation/X-box, smart phone, I-pod, and Kindle for ME because people a block over have them (and I don't want them)?
Who IS this guy--Santa Claus with the taxpayer's money?
The current so-called "poor" don't need his help, either--they're the ones who kill themselves every Christmas at doorbuster sales (think WallyWorld). THEY have flat-screen TVs, DVRs, electronic game consoles, smart phones, and all the other crap that makes them poor relative to me.
Some hysterical humor: what if an ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was living frugally? Then it would be a race to the bottom in terms of austerity just to see what "Santa" would bring them, then a race to see who could get rid of it the fastest. It just cracks me up that this guy doesn't get that some people just don't WANT.
Pure-D socialism. Spread the electronic wealth.
I have to laugh, though--around here, I'm the "rich guy" because I'm surrounded by retirees. Does this mean Obama's going to even out their playing field by funding an extra car, high-speed internet, a computer, satellite TV, a pantry full of food, and a carport full of firewood just because I have them?
Does this man he's going to fund a flat-screen TV, DVR, Playstation/X-box, smart phone, I-pod, and Kindle for ME because people a block over have them (and I don't want them)?
Who IS this guy--Santa Claus with the taxpayer's money?
The current so-called "poor" don't need his help, either--they're the ones who kill themselves every Christmas at doorbuster sales (think WallyWorld). THEY have flat-screen TVs, DVRs, electronic game consoles, smart phones, and all the other crap that makes them poor relative to me.
Some hysterical humor: what if an ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD was living frugally? Then it would be a race to the bottom in terms of austerity just to see what "Santa" would bring them, then a race to see who could get rid of it the fastest. It just cracks me up that this guy doesn't get that some people just don't WANT.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Obama's New Adversary
From CNN/Fortune.
"Obama noted that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" to rein in the deficit and then praised him for at least addressing entitlement spending. Following those apparently peaceful words, Democrats launched a withering assault over the next three days as budget director Peter Orszag, Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all pummeled Ryan for threatening the safety net for the elderly and providing tax breaks for the rich."
...
"What is the Ryan plan , and why is the Obama administration seemingly obsessed with it? Ryan calls his proposal, published in January, the Roadmap for America's Future. It's a remarkably comprehensive, daring manifesto that tackles every part of the budget on a presidential scale, from Social Security to tax policy to health-care reform.
The goal is to eliminate the deficit, and eventually all federal debt, without any crippling tax increases. Under Ryan's plan, for example, federal spending would reach just 24% of GDP in 2035 and then fall, vs. the CBO's projection of 34% and rising from there. Ryan would make the deficit disappear by mid-century."
"Obama noted that Ryan had "made a serious proposal" to rein in the deficit and then praised him for at least addressing entitlement spending. Following those apparently peaceful words, Democrats launched a withering assault over the next three days as budget director Peter Orszag, Democratic Congressional Campaign chairman Chris Van Hollen, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi all pummeled Ryan for threatening the safety net for the elderly and providing tax breaks for the rich."
...
"What is the Ryan plan , and why is the Obama administration seemingly obsessed with it? Ryan calls his proposal, published in January, the Roadmap for America's Future. It's a remarkably comprehensive, daring manifesto that tackles every part of the budget on a presidential scale, from Social Security to tax policy to health-care reform.
The goal is to eliminate the deficit, and eventually all federal debt, without any crippling tax increases. Under Ryan's plan, for example, federal spending would reach just 24% of GDP in 2035 and then fall, vs. the CBO's projection of 34% and rising from there. Ryan would make the deficit disappear by mid-century."
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The President's Imaginary Health Plan
From National Review Online.
"The president launched a last-ditch effort to pass a government takeover of American health care yesterday. To hear him tell it, his plan would let every American keep the health insurance he has today if he wants to. And it would reduce premiums, cut taxes for the middle class, slow the pace of rising costs, reduce the federal budget deficit, and keep bureaucrats out of health-care decisions too."
Employers would opt to pay the fine instead of continuing health care coverage--the federal government is the largest payroll in this country, and guess who would be the first one to abdicate it's health care duties in favor of the fine? Every military person, every civil service worker (including the post office), every Washington politician, everyone currently on Medicaid, everyone currently using VA medical services, and every senior citizen at or over 65 would be dumped--what a way to shirk self-imposed responsibility!
They say they want government control of health care--they already HAD most of it.
"The president launched a last-ditch effort to pass a government takeover of American health care yesterday. To hear him tell it, his plan would let every American keep the health insurance he has today if he wants to. And it would reduce premiums, cut taxes for the middle class, slow the pace of rising costs, reduce the federal budget deficit, and keep bureaucrats out of health-care decisions too."
Employers would opt to pay the fine instead of continuing health care coverage--the federal government is the largest payroll in this country, and guess who would be the first one to abdicate it's health care duties in favor of the fine? Every military person, every civil service worker (including the post office), every Washington politician, everyone currently on Medicaid, everyone currently using VA medical services, and every senior citizen at or over 65 would be dumped--what a way to shirk self-imposed responsibility!
They say they want government control of health care--they already HAD most of it.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Knife in Obama's Back?
From the L.A. Times.
"If reports are to be believed, Emanuel wanted Obama to be less ambitious ideologically but more aggressive politically. Emanuel likes winning, and so he thinks the president should pick battles he can win. Emanuel opposed the idea of shutting down Guantanamo Bay within a year. He argued that Obama should have gone for a smaller, more digestible healthcare bill that expanded coverage and attracted bipartisan support. He offered similar advice on a cap-and-trade bill. But on these and other issues, Obama opted to follow the lead of ideologically committed House liberals.
While so much of the hoopla over Milbank's column focuses on personalities -- Emanuel has earned many enemies -- I think it all masks a more profound ideological insecurity, indeed a political identity crisis."
Perhaps someone's been watching a little too much "24"?
"If reports are to be believed, Emanuel wanted Obama to be less ambitious ideologically but more aggressive politically. Emanuel likes winning, and so he thinks the president should pick battles he can win. Emanuel opposed the idea of shutting down Guantanamo Bay within a year. He argued that Obama should have gone for a smaller, more digestible healthcare bill that expanded coverage and attracted bipartisan support. He offered similar advice on a cap-and-trade bill. But on these and other issues, Obama opted to follow the lead of ideologically committed House liberals.
While so much of the hoopla over Milbank's column focuses on personalities -- Emanuel has earned many enemies -- I think it all masks a more profound ideological insecurity, indeed a political identity crisis."
Perhaps someone's been watching a little too much "24"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
