Tag Archives: John McCain

Ben Affleck Does the Congressional Congo

Ben Affleck Congo

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Iranian warships are near US maritime borders.  Immediately after blowing out the Olympic torch, Russian warships docked in Havana, Cuba.

The Ruski ships conveyed to Obama, the guy who dispatched a gay delegation to Sochi and refused to let Putin use the gym during the G-8 Summit in Ireland last year, this message:

You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don’t mess around with Put—in.

Here at home, Jonathan Turley, Barack Obama supporter and Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, warned Congress that, thanks to the president, the nation is at a “constitutional tipping point.”

Meanwhile, star of stage and screen, activist, husband to actress Jennifer Garner, and conga…sorry, Congo “expert” Ben Affleck testified before Congress on the trials and tribulations befalling the Democratic Republic of Congo.

What the useless US Congress is supposed to do about the Congo is a mystery, given the fact that the Democratic Republic of America is unraveling and the guys and gals Affleck “dazzled” on Crapitol Hill…sorry, Capitol Hill, haven’t done a damned thing about the unfolding catastrophe here at home.

While Barack Obama was flouting the law, busy expanding the spying scope of the NSA and warning Americans that the IRS has ways to ensure Obamacare taxes are paid, star-struck Republicans and Democrats apparently had better things to do than address Obama’s tyrannical overreach.  They were busy drooling all over Ben Affleck like schoolgirls in the front row at a One Direction concert.

Politicians like John ‘Bi-partisan’ McCain, who wouldn’t recognize commitment if he spent five years locked up in a POW camp with it, were taking selfies, gushing with patronizing compliments, requesting autographs, and telling the star of Armageddon that his “credibility is really remarkable because of the depth of [his] commitment.”

Affleck asked the Obama administration, in conjunction with Congress, to play a greater role in furthering the success of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s future.

Sorry to say, it doesn’t matter what Ben was talking about. Instead of focusing on Africa, Ben should take a look around. Right about now some Congo-level cause célèbre from the likes of Ben Affleck is the last thing we need to deal with.

Rather, Congress needs to focus like a laser on the mess the President is inflicting on America.

Despite the flashbulbs and effervescing lawmakers, in an attempt to feign humility, Affleck the Actor said:

“I am, to state the obvious, not a Congo expert.  I am an American working to do my part for a country and a people I believe in and care deeply about.”

In the end, Ben is “optimistic about the future of the Congo!”  Meanwhile, the future of America hangs treacherously in the balance.

In a few years, after Barack the Bully and the inept Congress get done obliterating the United States, if Ben Affleck is done doing the Congo, he can turn his well-informed attention toward doing his “part for a country and a people” right here in America.

Throwing the Rich to the Lions


Originally posted at American Thinker

The New Year has started well for Barack Obama. The president took a step forward in the ongoing process of “fundamentally transforming” America. As 2013 dawned, Obama accomplished a formidable set of goals: higher taxes for the majority, class warfare further exacerbated, and a public lashing of the prosperous for being prosperous.

Along with Obama’s victories, what was also revealed was how a wily leader could turn neighbor against neighbor, American against American.

On New Year’s Eve, Mr. Obama addressed the nation from the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, complete with a cheering section made up of middle-class supporters. The meeting was a rally/gloating session for a man clearly pleased that he had successfully forced his political adversaries to compromise on raising taxes. As an added bonus, at the event Obama managed to further malign the affluent.

Barack ‘Braggadocio’ Obama pointed out that the “fiscal cliff” crisis placed him on the brink of a huge political victory by forcing the GOP against their will to accept higher tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. Reveling in his conquest, the president pointed out to spectators that “Just last month, Republicans in Congress said they would never agree to raise rates.”

Well, that was then and this is now. Once again, by nurturing a Cloward-Piven-style crisis Obama managed to push the Republicans so close to the edge of the economic precipice that they were willing to agree to raise taxes to avoid being shoved into the abyss.

With a crisis-fueled wind at his back, Obama may as well have smirked and blurted that nasally third-grade favorite: “Na-nana-naa-nah.” Judging from the crowd he was charming, it would have gotten him a standing ovation.

Senator Dan Coats (R-Indiana) commented that Obama’s childish conduct reminded him of “of football players taunting their opponents.” Coats said, “It [was] in-your-face. It was demeaning. It was insulting. It was sad.”

Yet, despite the immature nature of the whole event, what was appalling was not so much Barack Obama’s predictable approach or his orchestrating what John McCain called “a cheerleading rally,” but the willingness of the audience to cheer when the President announced that the rich would be shouldering more of the nation’s tax burden.

For four years, Barack Obama has worked diligently to disparage success. He has insidiously cultivated class envy and fueled it with ignorance using the false premise that the wealthy destroyed the nation and are deserving of monetary castigation.

Clearly, Mr. Obama’s persistence has worked, because the type of wicked satisfaction displayed in response to a sophomoric president boasting that the rich would be overtaxed reeked of a mob mentality reminiscent of a coliseum full of bloodthirsty spectators.

Americans applauding the fact that other Americans are to be punished by a leader for fabricated offenses helps one understand atrocities like the Romans cheering while their Christian neighbors were thrown to the lions merely for being Christian.

It was a well known fact that Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also known as the Roman Emperor Nero, considered Rome “ugly and squalid.” In A.D. 64 there was a devastating fire that nearly destroyed Rome. As a result, rumors circulated that the emperor started the fire so that he could, for all intents and purposes, “fundamentally transform” the city into Neropolis.

Nero purposely starting a fire to create a crisis in order to bypass a disagreeable Senate and make Romans more amenable to his rebuilding the city is merely an ancient version of basic Cloward-Piven strategy. With Nero’s rule in jeopardy, and G.W. Bush’s birth not due for another 2000 years or so, the evil emperor needed someone to blame for the destruction. Nero chose Christians who were already believed by the Romans to be “antisocial, unpatriotic and uncooperative.” And the commoners bought it.

Antiquity tells us that:

To stop the rumor [that he had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were [generally] hated for their enormities. Accordingly first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of ‘hating the human race.’

To convince the Romans that Christians were guilty, Nero persuaded the Romans that this obscure sect, much like modern-day rich people, “hat[ed] the human race.” And so, with the public’s approval, Nero fed the innocent to wild beasts, and had others “burned alive as living torches to light garden [parties] at his Golden House.”

Nero was so skilled at art of persuasion that slaying Christians for sport was cheered in a manner eerily similar to the way Obama’s New Year’s Eve supporters cheered taxing the prosperous.

According to Roman historian Tacitus, eventually Christian persecution became so brutal that “[a] feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers.” Finally, astute Romans realized that Christians were “not [being] cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man.”

Fast-forwarding 2000 years, although the “wealthiest among us” are not being literally crucified, a leader who is purposely burning the country down in order to rebuild it his way is unfairly punishing the innocent. In the process, he’s managed to sway the envious that the wealthy aredeserving of being monetarily penalized.

On New Year’s Eve Obama wallowed in the fact that the burden for a fiscal fire he exacerbated would be officially laid on the backs of those he clearly loathes. Moreover, he did nothing to dissuade his audience from cheering the news that the well off would be thrown to the tax lions.

Therefore, Emperor Barack Obama passing the blame and admonishing the guiltless certainly smacks of ancient tyranny. Nonetheless, let’s hope that eventually ‘civilized’ people will stop applauding long enough to recognize that well-to-do Americans are “not [being] cut off for the public good,” but are modern day “victims of the ferocity of one man.”

Tea Party Terrorists and other Patriots

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Starting any conversation with “it’s not ideal” is a lead-in as disingenuous as the breakup line “It’s not you, it’s me” — both excuses are a pusillanimous way to look better by candy-coating the truth.  Yet that is exactly how Republicans in Congress — save a gang of 21 Congressmen and one woman who refused to submit to the President’s pressure — verbalized the imperfections of a debt deal that they claim to have made for the benefit of the nation.

After deciding to vote for a disappointing deal, riddled with guilt and refusing to make eye contact with the camera, Republicans explained the decision by commencing with rueful disclaimers.  From Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) to Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) and right on through to Eric Cantor (R-Virginia), each one halfheartedly defended a bill that raises the debt ceiling, authorizes trillions in new debt, and while lowering discretionary spending stands to potentially leave the government $20 trillion in debt by the end of the decade.

Gone were the vibrant passion and firm indignation of a week earlier, when John Boehner and his caucus acted as if they had an actual backbone.  Cowed by Obama’s threats of default, starving seniors, and a government shutdown, the champions morphed into cowards and then offered the lame analogy that “the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars is a lot like redirecting or turning an aircraft carrier.”

Rather than disembark from a doomed jetliner headed south, Republicans en masse agreed to give Captain Barack Obama trillions more in Monopoly money and put him in a perfect position to do what he does best:  Place the blame elsewhere after the crash.

After resigning themselves to proudly voting “Yes,” Texas Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison felt compelled to explain the rationale behind Republicans settling for removing a pinky toe from a gangrenous leg and calling it “better than nothing.” Kay Bailey Hutchinson said:

This is the best agreement we could have hoped for now, with Republicans in control of just the House of Representatives, and Democrats still controlling the Senate and White House. The agreement takes a series of small but significant steps in the right direction, which is better than big steps in the wrong direction.

Clearly, there remains a large group of Republicans in Washington DC who still don’t know which direction is the  “right direction” and apparently fail to comprehend that small steps deliver the same end if heading over a cliff — only at a more leisurely pace.

The only Republican caucus able to remain faithful to the constituency that placed them in power during the last election was comprised of 22 congresspersons all of which align themselves with the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Party is a grassroots group of Americans from all political viewpoints, economic classes and income groups who believe in strict Constitutional principles, smaller government, less taxes, American sovereignty, and a balanced budget.  The political faction is so committed to the idea of rescuing America from the clutches of the likes of Barack Obama that they managed to incite a groundswell of support during the 2010 election season.  In turn, America was partially freed from the Democrats’ grip by an army of newly elected Republican/Tea Party favorites sent to Washington DC to slow President Obama’s liberal goose-stepping march toward European socialism.

Nonetheless, thanks to the left, an occasional RINO or two, and the media all working in tandem, the Tea Party is viewed as an assemblage of fringe-element radicals — unreasonable fanatics whose goal during the debt debate was to use difficult demands to spoil a bipartisan negotiation process that would otherwise be abounding in convivial compromise and cordial conciliation.

Middle-grounder, Senator John McCain (who looks a little like Gollum himself) called the Tea Party activists, refusing to compromise, “hobbits. ” McCain accused Tea Partiers of undermining the debt debate process by insisting that Republicans do what every Democrat, including the one leading the current charge to raise the debt limit, Barack Obama, did when G. W. Bush wanted to do the same thing, which was to vote against it.

In addition to Senator McCain’s insightful comments, Vice President Joe Biden provided his usual lucidity, calling Tea Partiers “terrorists,” and in so doing likely felt he was assisting the Department of Homeland Security while simultaneously providing clarity for moderates who have hungered for someone to blame for keeping the nation divided.

What Joe didn’t realize is that by saying the Tea Party is “acting like terrorists,” he misidentified a surviving faction of patriots who menace Democrats merely because they thwart the left’s plan to create a bankrupt, Godless, demoralized America void of liberty and burdened with bureaucratic bondage.

In the end, because of an anemic dedication to what they claim to profess, Republicans helped implement a compromise Obama’s big spending White House is lauding as a “bipartisan deal that is ‘A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline’,” which explains the apologetic attempt to defend caving under pressure.

In essence, for lack of a better plan, rather than dump the proposal into the proverbial harbor, faint-hearted Republicans requested surplus tea served with a spritz of lemon and lots of sugar.  Instead of joining Congressional representatives who have no problem being identified with an earlier group of Tea Party “terrorists” who refused to give in to the oppression of a king who lived to regret the words, “The colonies must either submit or triumph,” John Boehner and his conciliatory caucus of congressional cowards rejected Tea Party anti-tyrannical terror and submitted.

Obama 2012 Campaign Manager: John McCain

Originally posted at American Thinker

The tactic Republicans used to win the midterm election was to tie every Democrat in Washington, D.C. to Barack Obama.  He and his liberal policies were so unpopular that identifying a Democrat candidate with the president delivered a Republican’s victory.

At the ballot box, the American people sent liberalism to the woodshed.  The nation cast off Obama, as well as Pelosi and much of her progressive Congress.  In January, the Republicans triumphantly arrived in Washington, D.C. promising to repeal health care reform, address out-of-control spending, and elevate conservative principles by making the U.S. Constitution the foundation of legislative discussion.

It’s clear as 2012 approaches that a similar blueprint of calling attention to a failed presidency could help unseat Barack Obama from the Oval Office.  Yet rather than continue to turn up the heat to accomplish that goal, one particular politician appears to be confused about what side of the aisle he should sit on.  That politician is…yes, you guessed it: that poster child of bipartisanship, the always civil and moderate John Sidney McCain.

As witnessed during the last presidential campaign, the Republican nominee had a peculiar way of promoting his bid for the presidency.  On more than one occasion, rather than pointing out the inauspicious prospect of electing Barack Obama, avuncular John reassured a tentative electorate, dismissing very real fears.  Senator McCain encouraged anxious voters not to worry, because his unqualified opponent was “absolutely qualified” to be president.

Instead of promoting his own candidacy, on occasion McCain would attempt to put voters on both the right and the left at ease by saying things like “Barack Obama would make a good president.”  McCain reassured America that his opponent was someone that he “both admired and respected.”

For all the positive free press John gave Barry, the senator might as well have gassed up the Yes We Can mobile and hung up two Barack campaign posters for every one “McCain/Palin 2008” lawn sign.

John McCain’s self-deprecating approach, suppressing a well-deserved distrust for Obama’s left-wing agenda, started two years ago, and now nothing — not even a country devastated by the president’s less-than-impressive stint — can stop John from continuing that trend.  Fawning over Barry in the name of civility compounds the mess McCain started during the presidential election, undermines the success of the midterm election, and paves the way for Obama to leave his suitcases unpacked.

The American public has been closely observing Washington, D.C. since the midterm election for reassurance that by voting for Republicans, they made the right choice.  Instead of keeping the heat on and stressing why the job that was started will be complete only when Barack is sent back to Chicago, old faithful John McCain has stepped forward as an advocate to help rehabilitate Barry’s sullied reputation.

In a Washington Post op-ed, John McCain praised Obama as a “patriot.”  McCain then jumped aboard the Barack bandwagon, lauded the president’s Arizona memorial speech, and said the president’s words “encouraged every American who participates in our political debates — whether we are on the left or right or in the media — to aspire to a more generous appreciation of one another and a more modest one of ourselves.”

Apparently, bipartisan John wasn’t privy to some of the president’s more partisan soundbites.

Appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Senator Tom Udall (D-NM)’s State of the Union dance partner chose to applaud Obama’s impressive performance as a president.  McCain advanced the crusade to undermine the effort to send Barack back to Chicago by speaking on behalf of “hope and change” and expressing the comforting opinion that “the president has already changed a great deal.”

Rather than lay the groundwork for Obama’s defeat in 2012, the Arizona senator is fast becoming a foundational promoter for the president’s bid for reelection.  John McCain should be helping to further the Republican platform of smaller government, less spending, privatized health care, low taxes, and all things anti-Obama.  Instead, McCain told John Schieffer that “[t]he president, I think, has learned a lot in the last two years, as any president does.  He is a very intelligent man. I think he’s doing a lot of right things.”

If John McCain’s mouth even comes within fifty feet of a microphone, it seems as if the senator uses the occasion to underscore what he perceives to be Obama’s positive presidential accomplishments.  Based on McCain’s relentless attempts to undermine Republican chances to gain back the White House, the historically bipartisan Arizona senator’s misappropriated civility indicates that if there is anyone the very partisan Barack Obama can depend upon to help him win a second term, John McCain is the man.

Obama the Condescending Corrector

Listening to Obama chide, orchestrate and moderate the health care summit harkened back to school when teachers turned classroom lights on and off to control the activity of school children.

On occasion indoor recess would take place while a jaded schoolteacher attempted to read at her desk. The teacher would then say, “OK people, play time is over, everyone to your seat and back to work.” If youthful activity failed to be curtailed, the teacher would abruptly ask, “Need I remind you who’s in charge here?”

That was the scene at Blair House, schoolmarm Obama allowed Republicans to let off steam, vent, run around during recess, but never once considered allowing serious input to influence direction or impact the end result.

Take for example Obama’s repeated condescending manner. Condescension is defined as, “behaving as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.” Any person, even remotely sensitive to a patronizing attitude, would have felt uncomfortable during the summit watching John McCain be smacked down publicly by Obama’s oversized ego.

Like a conscientious student reminding a forgetful teacher, “but you said if we finished the chapter we wouldn’t have homework,” upstart maverick McCain pointed out Obama’s broken campaign promise to bring “change in Washington.” Sporting a signature smirk Obama, curtly corrected McCain saying, “We’re not campaigning any more. The election is over.” Obama’s smarmy retort was tantamount to saying, “John need I remind you? You lost, I won, story over. Please be seated and discontinue speaking.”

McCain questioned Democrat “behind closed doors” deal making. The Senator queried why, after promising otherwise Obama delivered, a process both politicians vowed, “would change in Washington?”

Senator McCain made the fateful error of jogging Obama’s disingenuous memory.  Based on Barack’s prickly response, could it be McCain’s statement was interpreted as a correction from underling to superior authoritarian?  If so, McCain’s assertion couldn’t remain unaddressed by elite educationalist Barack Obama overseeing dialogue in a room full of unruly Republicans.

Obviously, McCain’s tone if left unaddressed, would prove devastating to Obama’s ability to maintain discipline …McCain needed to be made an example of. The president brusquely told the Arizona Republican, “Hey, Johnny Boy, enough out of you. Get back in your seat. You got a failing grade so you have zero credibility and nothing to say.”

Obama’s reaction gave John an “L” for loser sign.  The senate’s original maverick might as well have been ordered to sit in the corner writing “I will not question Obama” 100 times on a chalkboard. A clearly discomfited McCain looked around at colleagues chortling uncomfortably, “I’m reminded of that every day.”

Visibly bored Obama allowed classroom discussion to continue, listening “with his chin raised and his eyes narrowed [and] with his head resting quizzically in one hand.” Obama monopolized speaking time, expressing piqued interest only when he, or his party held the floor.

Fidgety summit attendees balked about time inequities to adequately express alternate points of view. In response to the valid unequal time issue, just as John McCain was restrained, Obama harnessed critique with a unique brand of presidential logic saying, “You’re right, there was an imbalance on the opening statements because I’m the president. I didn’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”  Whoa!

Judging from the President’s performance at the health care summit, in his opinion, he alone makes the grade.  In the end, overbearing teacher Barack Obama will ultimately control the light switch of American health care, while a lowly minion of ill-informed school children quiet down and obey.

%d bloggers like this: