Tag Archives: Tea Party

Obama on ‘Gang-Bangers,’ Hoodies, and Illegals Emptying Bedpans

GangwayOriginally posted at American Thinker

It’s classic Cloward-Piven strategy.  First you foment a crisis, and then you rush in with a left-wing cure.  That is exactly what the president did during an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who is not to be confused with Sesame Street’s Mr. Snuffleupagus.

That’s right – Barack Obama, who, when it comes to himself, regularly contravenes the rules and regulations, is now suddenly an expert on how law enforcement should comport themselves in tense situations.

According to the president, minority community sensitivity is needed for police officers, who Obama has said in the past can “act stupidly.” The president feels the goal should be to teach law enforcement how to differentiate between a gang-banger and an innocent child, who, if wearing a hoodie, could be Obama’s son.

What the president’s counsel did not include was advice on how to deal with gang-bangers wearing hoodies or innocent children foolishly emulating gang-bangers.

Nonetheless, Obama did tell a totally transfixed George:

… [t]hey want to make sure the police are trained so they can distinguish between a gang banger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie, but otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong.

The president should be familiar with that type of mix-up. In 2008 and 2012, thanks to his emitting a “new car smell,” candidate Obama benefited because Americans were not trained to distinguish between a qualified candidate and a Chicago community organizer/socialist rabble-rouser who decided being black was the only criterion needed to run for president.

Now, just a few weeks after America expressed views Obama ignored when he lawlessly and unilaterally extended executive amnesty to those who defy the rule of law, he told George Stephanopoulos, “You know, this is a country that allows everybody to express their views. But using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are.”

It sure would have been nice if George had asked the president, who just the other day said that “[m]ass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character,” how the rule of law reflects who we are in some circumstances, but in others, following the rule of law contradicts our character?

After a break, Obama came back to discuss why lawless behavior is acceptable when he deems it necessary. Stephanopoulos asked the president how he justified exercising “administrative flexibility” when he circumvented Congress to grant amnesty to 5,000,000 illegal aliens.

First the president denied being emperor; then he explained that his job is to execute the laws he doesn’t keep, and then applied the gang-banger/hoodie argument to immigration when he told George that America has to:

…[p]rioritize felons, criminals, recent arrivals, folks who are coming right at the border and acknowledge that if somebody’s been here for over 5 years, they may have an American child or a legal permanent resident child[.]

In other words, the president was sort of saying that when it comes to immigration, Americans have to put the law aside and be able to “distinguish between” gang-banging illegal ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, murderers, and rapists and hoodie-wearing unaccompanied minors who just happen to be infected with Enterovirus D-68, but otherwise are good kids and “not doing anything wrong.”

Then, after citing prosecutorial discretion as the reason he did what he erroneously thinks Democrat and Republican presidents have done before with bipartisan Congressional approval, the president went on to give a laundry list of things that we have to do but will never do nor be able to enforce.

Things like securing the border, deporting criminals similar to the ones the Obama administration has already released, and believing that illegals will willingly submit to criminal background checks and U.S. tax law.

Then, point guard Stephanopoulos provided an opportunity for Obama to block any argument that might suggest that his so-called prosecutorial discretion on immigration could open the door for future presidents to target Democrat favorites like abortion and taxes.

According to Barack Obama, it’s different when it comes to taxes because, he says, “The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes. And when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating.”

Wait! Sneaking over the border isn’t dishonest? And when he says “we,” does he mean himself and Lois Lerner auditing conservatives, Tea Party activists, and right-wing media types?

Either way, apparently for Obama it’s not the same when illegals flagrantly break the law as it is for American citizens whom Obama wants to abuse with Chicago-style intimidation.

Clearly, the president feels his time is better spent “going after” millions and millions of Americans who disagree with him politically than it is pursuing illegals who Obama believes “we’re taking advantage of … as they mow lawns or clean out bedpans.”

When it comes to tax law, Obama, who’s proven to be the lawless one and who doesn’t expect bed-making, fruit-picking, lawn-mowing, bed-pan-emptying illegals to follow the law either, said that although not every person is audited, “we,” (as in he) “still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law.”

So there you have it. According to Barack Obama, black teenage boys in hoodies are off-limits to police officers. Similarly, when it comes to illegal aliens, the hoodie test should also be applied, lest those daring to suggest deportation as an option end up being legally audited by a president who doesn’t respect the law.

 

Instead of Leveling the Playing Field Barack Obama Evens the Score

obama-angryOriginally posted at The Blacksphere

Anyone who does not believe that the thin-skinned, vindictive, acrimonious Barack Obama is more than capable of dictating the targeting criteria for the IRS chief is either hopelessly naïve or just plain stupid.

Over the years, America has witnessed Barack Obama veer off the teleprompter and bubble over with contempt for any person, news organization, or political group that doesn’t goose-step in time to his collective vision for America.

His attempts at verbal vengeance are not only pathetic and juvenile but, quite frankly, smack of a leader possessed by the spirit of despotism. That’s why it’s beginning to appear that Barack Obama might have been behind the effort by the IRS to systematically harass Americans based on political and religious persuasion.

Lest we forget, before the IRS scandal broke, the president had already attempted to publicly humiliate the Supreme Court for ruling on the side of free speech in the Citizens United case, attacked Americans for Prosperity, warned of attack ads “run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names” who he accused of being funded by a “foreign controlled entity.”

The president even went so far as to call conservative groups “insidious,” “a problem for democracy,” and guilty of “unsupervised spending.”

Based on his inability to hide his hostility, it’s quite possible that the President’s disparagement of his detractors may not have been enough to satiate his apparently unquenchable desire for retribution. Consequently, it appears as though it was Barack Obama who, in a retaliatory effort, may have wielded his “convening power” by funneling it through the IRS.

Between 2010 and 2012, right about the time the president began publicly challenging conservatives and calling Tea Party activists the vulgar sexual term “tea baggers,” the IRS began sending letters demanding that conservative and tea party groups seeking tax-exempt status provide training materials, personal information, donor lists, and even the content of religious invocations.

Since the scandal was exposed, liberals have tried desperately to convince Americans that the blame should be placed in the lap of a few overzealous “rogue agents” working in a small IRS office in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Now here we are two years later, and Deputy Commissioner of the IRS Steve Miller has been forced into early retirement. And it’s been revealed that former IRS Commissioner Doug Schulman allegedly visited the White House 120 times during the timeframe the Tea Party and other conservative groups were being targeted for extra screening.

Most notably, Washington-based IRS official, Lois Lerner, refused to testify under oath, pleaded the Fifth Amendment, and is currently negotiating immunity in exchange for further testimony before Congress.

Now, as the reckoning expands, we find out that IRS chief counsel and Obama-appointed official, William Wilkins, who was recently implicated in House Oversight testimony by retiring IRS lawyer Carter Hull, met with Barack Obama two days prior to writing and distributing new criteria that specifically targeted Tea Party and conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status.

According to White House visitor logs, on April 23, 2012, in between touring the US Holocaust Museum and presenting the Commander-in-Chief Trophy to the Air Force Academy football team in the Rose Garden, Obama sashayed over to the Roosevelt Room of the White House to meet with Wilkins and 13 other people.  Then, coincidentally, on the following day, before sitting for a Late Night with Jimmy Fallon interview in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Barack “slow jam the news” Obama squeezed in an off-the-schedule rendezvous with IRS commissioner Douglas ‘Easter Egg Roll’ Shulman.

The next day, on April 25, 2012, William Wilkins suddenly came up with and sent Hull and fellow Washington-based IRS official Lois Lerner “additional comments on the draft guidance.” According to the IRS inspector general’s report, the instructions Wilkins circulated within two days after meeting with the president referred directly to approving or (mostly) denying tea party tax-exempt applications.

As the truth slowly tightens around the neck of the IRS scandal, more and more it’s as if Barack Obama, on a quest for revenge, initiated and orchestrated a plan to shut down, silence, and discourage American citizens.

Which means that, once again, and although he swears otherwise, the president has proven that for those who refuse to comply with or conform to his radical social, economic, and environmental agenda, it’s more about evening the score than leveling the playing field.

Media Worried Iowa is ‘Too White’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Is Iowa racially incorrect?  In an interview with Republican strategist Michael Murphy, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News had the audacity to allude to an unnamed critic who is supposedly dismissing Iowa because it’s “too white.”

What we do know is that A.G. Sulzberger of the New York Times recently wrote this: “Iowa has long been criticized as too much of an outlier to be permanently endowed such an outsize influence in shaping the presidential field. Too small, critics say. Too rural. Too white.”

Apparently, the critics Sulzberger cited dismiss the fact that regardless of how many white people live in Iowa, the Republican field would have included an African-American candidate had the liberal media given Herman Cain the same benefit of the doubt they extended to a white man named Bill Clinton when he was accused — and subsequently proven guilty — of much more.

If not for the media blowing Herman Cain’s alleged and uncorroborated philandering into a major story, the Iowa caucus wouldn’t have been “too white” because Cain, who happens to be black, would have been on the roster.

As caucus voters in Iowa headed to the polls to vote, it appeared as if the media, consisting mostly of white liberals, were gearing up for the Obama 2012 effort by taking steps toward conjuring up pre-election visions of “too white,” toothless, cross-burning racists.

Instead of asking pertinent questions about issues that impact America’s future, the mainstream media wastes precious time fueling the melanin meter and measuring skin tones against a liberal color chart.

Remember how, in tandem with Democrats, the media worked day and night to make sure the words ‘Tea Party’ were synonymous with racist?  Apparently, that same group doesn’t think it’s important to question the widespread expressions of anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street, or query Obama on how he plans to reconcile fostering class warfare with promoting national unity.

Yet Andrea Mitchell did feel it was imperative to raise a phantom question based on claims by an unnamed “critic” that the caucuses in Iowa weren’t accurately representative of a diverse/secular/urban America.

Regardless of these supposed ‘white, Christian, rural’ drawbacks, in 2008 Iowa helped put Barack Obama in the White House.  Wonder whether Andrea Mitchell’s mysterious critic thought Iowa was failing to represent America in 2008?

For the record, there are only 14 states with smaller populations than the Hawkeye State of Iowa, and due to rural flight, 61% of Iowans now live in urban areas. Iowa is largely Christian, and more than 90% white.  Thus, according to critics in the media, Iowa is too white…too Christian, and although less rural, still too rural.

Sad but true, the America that the media promotes is one categorized only by race and class.  Liberal media elitists like Andrea Mitchell want the majority of Americans to believe that secular urban dwellers who choose to contribute to NARAL instead of tithing to a local church are the underrepresented majority, when in reality they are not. The nation’s largest population may live in urban areas, but America is still largely white and Christian.

It wasn’t white Christian Iowans that registered irrelevant racial implications via an anonymous critic – it was Andrea Mitchell representing the liberal media.

Maybe Andrea Mitchell can answer a question for all Americans: Why isn’t the same liberal media, giddy with joy and tripping over each other to reveal the identities of Herman Cain’s accusers, as eager to reveal the identity of the person concerned with a socially conservative state like Iowa being “too white” to represent people of color in Obama-friendly blue states?

 

Barack Obama ‘Acting Stupidly’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Without saying anything, Barack Obama’s silence speaks louder than all his empty words. The President who likes to define himself as a champion of racial equality and promoter of civility has thus far stood by in silence as liberals attempt to lower the stature of Herman Cain by portraying him as a conservative version of Stepin Fetchit.

By failing to address the prejudicial remarks directed at Herman Cain, the President of the United States is revealing a side of himself that reeks of a form of discriminatory selectiveness that should further discredit his claim to be the purveyor of civility and racial justice.

Who can forget the President’s response to the supposed prejudice leveled against Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates? Without the benefit of all the information surrounding the incident, Barack Obama rushed before the cameras to publicly condemn Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer Joseph Crowley and insinuated that, due to the color of his skin, Gates was the target of racial profiling and victimized by ‘stupidity’ on the part of law enforcement.

Recently the President spoke at the dedication of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial.  It was there that he described Dr. King as “a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”

Yet, while Herman Cain, a man who fits a similar description, is whacked by MSNBC analyst Karen Finney with a verbal billy club and drenched with a fire hose of mean-spirited rhetoric that described him as merely a “Black man who knows his place” – Barack Obama has remained silent.

Where is the President’s usual predictable indignation?  Why no public correction or call for mutual respect?

At the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication, in an attempt to portray himself as a great black leader, Obama didn’t hesitate to put a self-referential spin on the narrative of Dr. King’s life, saying: “Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a communist and a radical.”

Barack Obama had the temerity to place himself on the same level as Martin Luther King Jr. and yet, soon after, he stood by while left-wing pundits with zero content of character made racially humiliating comments about Herman Cain that were based solely on the color of his skin.

Thus far, Obama hasn’t said a word.  He has neither corrected, condemned, nor cited mentor Saul Alinsky, whom he quoted at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial dedication when he said, “We can’t be discouraged by what is. We’ve got to keep pushing for what ought to be.”

Maybe the President also believes that if a black American such as Herman Cain is a conservative,  he should know his place and that, especially in politics, they are nothing more than a stereotype, a caricature.

When not diminishing the memory of Dr. King by pretending to be much like him, Barack spends some of his off time making the rounds collecting campaign contributions in Hollywood.  In the meantime, liberal comedian David Letterman is on a mission to replace GW Bush with Herman Cain as the newest late-night-created Republican stammering idiot.

If any of the Letterman “Top Ten Signs Herman Cain’s Campaign is in Trouble” were applied to Barack Obama, the left would be picketing the Ed Sullivan Theatre and demanding an Imus-style resignation.  If the butt of Dave’s jokes had been named Henry (as in Professor Henry Gates), Obama would never have stood for Letterman implying that Henry was “less fun-crazy and more crazy-crazy.”

It doesn’t end there either.  In the name of fairness and economic equity the President, who insulted Tea Party activists by referring to them as racists and by using the vulgar sexual slang term “tea baggers” to describe American citizens, has yet to condemn the behavior taking place within the ‘Occupy’ movement.

So far, Obama has not disassociated himself from a protest infiltrated by prostitution, public masturbation, filth, violence, and people fighting over money, blankets and food, nor has he called for civility from a nationwide movement presently populated by ingrates that scream police brutality after defecating on the bumpers of squad cars.

Which brings us back to Obama’s disingenuous attempt to convince people that he possesses a measure of righteousness that sets him apart from mere mortals.

When it benefited him politically and he wanted to paint the right as impolite, he hosted a civility conference in Tucson Arizona, quoted Scripture, and called for a measure of tolerance he demands for himself but is unwilling to extend to anyone else.

If Hollywood liberals promise to put cash in Obama’s 2012 campaign coffers, he casually overlooks demeaning comments directed toward Herman Cain by asinine comedians because what would otherwise be viewed as racially-tinged humor may instead help advance his cause.

If a group of deadbeat derelicts squat in public parks and proceed to behave like savages, if the signs they carry support “sharing the wealth” and condemn the wealthy, and in time for the next election hold the promise of swaying the general public toward liberal policies, then by saying nothing the President, America’s self-proclaimed purveyor of non-discrimination and equal rights, is condoning rape, racism, and barefaced anti-Semitism.

By exhibiting selective indignation and failing to address the negative racial remarks directed at potential presidential opponents, supporting the nationwide disgrace that is the ‘Occupy’ movement, and choosing to associate with liberal comedians who make Herman Cain the butt of racial jokes, President Barack Obama is proving he doesn’t understand the responsibilities of his role, or understand his place as a leader.

Organizing a ‘Barbarian’ Boycott

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Everyone knows that in life there are some situations where you’re “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” Either way, in the eyes of liberals, Republicans are always damned.  Such is the case with Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress. Seems that “Several lawmakers are still determining whether it is worth their time to stay in Washington to hear the President, and some are already planning [to] skip it.”

Why should Republicans go to a jobs speech by a President who clearly blames them for an unemployment situation he’s compounded?  As it relates to labor, jobs, labor unions and Labor Day, Barack Obama, who prides himself on civility and measured tones, has yet to ask his vice president to retract his “barbarians at the gate” statement or rebuke Jimmy Hoffa Jr. for his combative, over-the-top remarks.

Now he expects to woo the “barbarians” into the arena, where he has plans to publicly humiliate them a la the 2010 State of the Union address, where Supreme Court justice Sam Alito could not help mouthing the words “Not true” in response to the president attempting to publicly shame him over a ruling on campaign advertising.

If Republicans go, they’re fools.

Moreover, being threatened by the likes of Teamsters General President Jimmy Hoffa Jr. should have every Republican who plans to attend Obama’s job-creation speech — especially those in the Tea Party caucus — checking under their seats and straining to keep a watchful eye on the back door.

In fact, if Republicans had any backbone they’d demand that Obama rebuke Hoffa for his uncivil language when he said, “President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Everybody here has got a vote. If we go back, keep your eye on the prize… let’s take these son of bitches [sic] out and give America back (inaudible) America where we belong.”

So far, there’s been silence from the civility-minded President who, at the emotional “Together We Thrive” Tucson Memorial, at the “rebuttal of Republicans and Tea Party activists” at the University of Michigan, and at the “civility is not a sign of weakness” 2010 National Prayer Breakfast, demanded softer tones from all Americans, especially those who are critical of him.

If the Labor Day rally was any indication of the direction the joint session job creation speech may take in framing the Republicans as the reason for 9.1% unemployment, the right side of the aisle had best stay clear of the halls of Congress.

What a powerful statement it would be if right-leaning politicians publicly declared that until the President disavows Mr. Hoffa’s crude, inflammatory rhetoric; announces that he disagrees with the ‘take these sons-of-bitches out’ language; and stipulates that the Teamster president owes a large group of American citizens an apology, not one Republican lawmaker should set foot in the House of Representatives.

Paul Broun (R-GA) is one such Republican congressman who won’t be attending. Broun has made it a tradition to post his retorts to Obama’s remarks on Twitter.  Paul Broun plans to watch the long-anticipated speech from across the street in his office where he can scream at the flat-screen and, if he so chooses, blow a kazoo every time Obama floats a falsehood.

The Congressman’s Twitter practice is a safer, less controversial way to express Joe Wilson (R-SC)-style “You lie!” responses without becoming a whipping boy after telling the truth. Instead of shouting it out, Broun can tweet it out similar to how, during the State of the Union address, he tweeted “Mr. President, you don’t believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism.”

Last week Joe Walsh (R-IL) also announced that he would not be among those in attendance.  What’s Joe’s excuse for playing hooky?  Walsh, who obviously has a realistic sense of what goes on when Obama takes to the plinth, said on Twitter that he “didn’t want to act as a ‘prop‘ for Obama’s speech.”  Wise thinking, Joe.

What Joe should do now is expand on that tweet and recommend to Republican colleagues that a Hoffa Jr./barbarian boycott is definitely called for.

If he did, Mr. Walsh would be encouraging Republican legislators to freely and peaceably assemble themselves somewhere besides the job creation joint session.  In doing so, and in response to rude language directed toward the Republicans at a Labor Day rally, the esteemed Congressman would be organizing a peaceful protest directed toward the President’s constituents and, for his failure to repudiate Hoffa and Biden’s abusive comments.

A Republican joint session no-show isn’t impossible.  Every day the Republican Refusenik movement appears to be growing. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, said that he “probably” wouldn’t show up either.  Way to go, Jim!

Senator DeMint said that if Obama had “sent a written proposal over first, I would go hear him explain it, but frankly right now I’m so frustrated I don’t think I’m going to go. I can’t imagine too many Americans wanting to hear another speech with no real plan attached.”

Except of course for the President, who loves to hear himself read, and because that’s where he gets to learn what it is he believes.

Nevertheless, President Obama’s lack of condemnation for Hoffa’s statement to “take out” those who disagree with failed job policies, union thuggery, and additional stimulus masquerading as job creation is a perfect excuse to justify a mass Republican protest.

On the other hand, what a perfect opportunity to band together and make a statement, because rest assured, Republicans will be publicly “damned” by Obama if they do show up.  So, how about all of them attending?  Then mid-speech, like the “barbarians” Biden says they are, the Republicans could stand up, head for the door, and save Jimmy Hoffa Jr. the trouble by voluntarily “taking themselves out.”

Author’s content: www.jeannie-ology.com

Thomas Lifson adds:

As emotionally satisfying as this plan might seem, I believe it would be a strategic mistake. Obama would be able to claim that the GOP refuses to work together, and insults the American people by boycotting a plan to save the economy. “They won’t even listen,” he could say.  The media would relentlessly pound this theme. It would be much better to let Obama’s speech flop, as it is likely to do.

 

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.

Pelosi Fertilizes the ‘Astroturf’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Graphic credit to American Elephant at: americanelephant.wordpress.com

Last year Nancy Pelosi dismissed the Tea Party movement, insisting Republican headquarters had orchestrated anti-healthcare demonstrations at town hall meetings.  Then Speaker Pelosi, unabashed in her disparagement of Tea Party protesters, maintained that many of the “opponents who [were] shutting down civil discussions [were] organized by out-of-district, extremist political groups, and industry-supported lobbying firms.”

When Pelosi said: “Many of these opponents … shutting down civil discussion are organized by out-of-district, extremist political groups, and industry-supported lobbying firms,” Ms. Nancy could have been describing the present state of affairs in frenzied Wisconsin.

Before opening her mouth, Nancy Pelosi should monitor what goes on inside her head.  It doesn’t take a genius to realize that those suspicious of others are usually projecting their own tactics onto the people they accuse.

Partisan Pelosi maintained, “The Republican Party directs a lot of what the Tea Party does, but not everybody in the Tea Party takes direction from the Republican Party.  And so there was a lot of, shall we say, Astroturf, as opposed to grassroots.”  Astroturf’ is a DC “euphemism for a corporate public relations campaign disguised to look like a grassroots citizen movement.”

When it comes to campaigns “disguised to look like grass roots movements,” Pelosi should look no further than the DNC and the political arm of the Obama campaign, Organizing for America, both of whom have their fingerprints all over the busing of rowdy protesters to the Wisconsin capital to voice resistance to Governor Scott Walker’s attempt to balance the budget.

It is easy to see the fracas is a formally organized effort, especially when listening to demonstrators who, other than getting a day off from school, don’t know why they’re on a spur-of-the-moment field trip, wearing a red T-shirt or storming the Madison Bastille.

In an attempt to remedy fiscal disaster caused in part by supporting entitlements, Obama and Pelosi seek a fix by penalizing innocent Americans and placing the nation under the weight of undue tax burdens.  Moreover, if a Republican attempts to save the sinking ship by throwing unsustainable weight overboard, rather than accepting responsibility for the mess, ‘Astroturf’ politicians demonize the people attempting to prevent disaster.

Thus, Nancy’s sentiments about opposing the Wisconsin governor’s effort to address a $3.6 billion budget shortfall are quite different from her criticism of Tea Party activists expressing opposition to Barack Obama’s healthcare reform.  Rather than acknowledging the “Astroturf” aspect of the coordinated Wisconsin Revolt, the House Minority Leader, along with the President, side with an unruly mob that refuses to do what Obama demands of everyone else, which is “‘to give a little bit‘ to solve the nation’s fiscal problem.”

Tea Party activists rejected Obamacare and were labeled a “mob scene” by a gavel-toting Nancy Pelosi strutting forth in brazen defiance of popular opinion.  However, in Pelosi’s view, Democrats walking out of work, swarming a state capital, carrying hateful, uncivil signage and rejecting modest proposals to address crushing budget deficits are all laudable qualities and “an extraordinary show of democracy in action.”

Chief union /community organizer Barack Obama continues to make rules liberal constituencies are not required to follow.  Obama and Pelosi’s unflinching support for union thugs and defiant protesters can be directly traced to who “shares” and who “pockets” wealth.  Democrat supporters refuse to relinquish even small percentages of income to balance the budget.  In turn, Obama-style wealth sharing is automatically taken off the collective bargaining table and in return Democrats purchase power through what Nancy Pelosi defines as “Democracy in action.”

Scott Walker’s ‘Difficult Choices’

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

At the 9/12 Taxpayer March on Washington, regular Americans were treated with derision by the President of the United States as they gathered to voice an opinion on high taxes, out of control government and the loss of traditional values.

Last year Obama dared the Tea Party by saying: “So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do? It’s not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it’s important for you to say, I’m willing to cut veterans’ benefits or I’m willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I’m willing to see these taxes go up… some of these are very difficult choices.”

In response to Barry’s “challenge,” the newly elected Wisconsin governor, Republican Scott Walker, “identified and specified.”  In the face of a $3.6 billion budget deficit and in an effort to rein in out-of-control spending, Walker made the difficult choice to cut state worker benefits 8%, as well as curtail the power of unions in the collective bargaining process.

After Governor Walker responded to Obama’s provocative confrontation, rather than praise the effort to address the deficit the President stood with unions and state workers storming the Wisconsin state capital in opposition to the Walker’s proposal. The President sided with the wrong crowd by befriending unruly protestors whose signage conveyed the antithesis of the President’s moving civility-first message in Tucson.

Quite contrary to his criticism of the Tea Party, the President endorsed the DNC’s “Organizing for America – the remnant of the 2008 Obama campaign -playing an active role in organizing protests” that are raining bedlam down on the Badger State.

After mocking the Tea Party for “waving tea bags around,” the President has said nothing about Organizing for America “Filling buses and building turnout for the rallies…in Madison organizing 15 rapid response phone banks urging supporters to call their state legislators, and working on planning and producing rallies.”

This arm of Obama’s operation – campaigning against conservative change – is predictable. Organizing for America‘s support for the protesters is right in line with the President’s “clear stance against Walker.” History tells us that when it comes to dealing with Republican governors, Obama’s policy is poles apart from his positive response to progressive disorder.

In Arizona, Barack defended illegal aliens, sued the state, and abandoned Governor Jan Brewer in her fight against a relentless invasion from the south. The President remains nonchalant about the war on the border as US federal and border patrol agents and US citizens are murdered daily by drug cartels.

Moreover, if challenged on any level, Barack refuses to budge. After he “won,” Governor Walker came up with a plan to address Wisconsin’s huge budget shortfall and despite opposition has not faltered. Obama should be praising the governor for “ignoring Wisconsin voices today and asking for the power to drown them out permanently tomorrow.” Doesn’t Walker’s stance typify the Barack Obama pay-no-heed-to-those-who-oppose-you style of governing?

In response to the Wisconsin unrest, even House Speaker John Boehner implored the President to get Organizing for America to retreat from inappropriately organizing the disruptive political protest. Boehner said: “I urge the president to order the DNC to suspend these tactics.”

Regardless of the outcome, it is unlikely President Obama will respond to Boehner’s plea in a mature, bipartisan way. In fact, if Scott Walker’s bill passes, Barack will likely retaliate by suing the state of Wisconsin and then turning his negative attention to yet another Republican governor and go after the reputation of, oh…let’s see…maybe someone like New Jersey’s Chris Christie?

Obama muddles ahead

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

Amidst anarchy in Egypt and rumors that Hosni Mubarak plans to step down so that Mohamed ElBaradei, supposed “point man” for the “outlawed” Muslim Brotherhood, can seize control of the reformed Egyptian government, in an effort to reassure a tense world President Barack Obama finally took to the stage with an update on the crisis in Egypt.

Somber and in control, Barack assured the people that in between basketball games and cocktail parties for political advisors, his “administration has been in close contact with our Egyptian counterparts and a broad range of the Egyptian people, as well as others across the region and across the globe.” Then Obama, a man who seems to lack core values, gave his word that when it comes to Egypt, “a set of core principles” leads the way.

The President espoused opposition to violence, commended the Egyptian military for “professionalism and patriotism,” and thanked them for “allowing peaceful protests while protecting the Egyptian people.” Ever the promoter of “change,” Barack Obama urged “the military to continue its efforts to help ensure that this time of change is peaceful.”
Maintaining a serious tone, Obama never mentioned the Tea Party, Fairness Doctrine or Internet “kill switch,” but claimed to “stand for universal values,” such as “freedom of assembly…speech and…access to information.”

Midway through the address, the always predictable Obama accidentally slid into campaign mode and spoke out on “behalf of the need for change.”   Regaining composure Obama shared that President Mubarak recognized that “the status quo is not sustainable and that a change must take place,” which coincidentally are the same words Obama uses whenever referencing health care reform, the war in Afghanistan, or when out promoting new/justifying old  failed policies.

The President said, “Indeed, all of us who are privileged to serve in positions of political power do so at the will of our people…The voices of the Egyptian people tell us that this is one of those moments; this is one of those times.” Amazingly, Obama hears the Egyptian people 6,000 miles away, yet seems hearing-impaired when it comes to listening to the voice of the American people about ObamaCare.

Nevertheless, the President shared that he told Mubarak, “Now, it is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt’s leaders. Only the Egyptian people can do that.” Still, it did seem as if Obama offered Mubarak a polite suggestion, nudging the toppled president toward “an orderly transition [that] must be meaningful, … peaceful, and …must begin now” – emphasis on the “must begin now.”

Speaking on behalf of old friends, Obama allegedly expressed a willingness to support the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in a reformed Egyptian government.  However, in this statement, Obama referenced “free and fair” elections and suggested Mubarak’s three decades-old dictatorship be replaced with a system influenced by an ideology that supports a Islamic theocracy rooted in Sharia law, or what the President loosely defines as a “broad spectrum of Egyptian voices and opposition parties.”

Even though it appears “aspirations of the Egyptian people” may have been manipulated by an Islamist organization with “stated goals … to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the ‘sole reference point for … the Muslim family, individual, community … and state,'” as well as the annihilation of Israel, Obama did not hesitate to propose Egypt’s new government be “grounded in democratic principles.”

Despite the fact that an overconfident Muslim Brotherhood told “Egyptians [to] prepare for war with Israel,” President Obama vowed that throughout Egypt’s transition process, “the United States will continue to extend the hand of partnership and friendship to Egypt.”

The President, who ignores the voice of the American people and who burdened generations of children with insurmountable debt, spoke with respect for the younger generation who took to the streets of Cairo, which is quite contrary to Obama’s opinion of peaceful protestors in America. Obama said:  “We hear your voices…[and] have an unyielding belief that you will determine your own destiny and seize the promise of a better future for your children and your grandchildren.”

So a short recap of Obama’s most recent comments on the crisis in Egypt include: Mention of . America did find out that the President does support free speech, but just for Egyptian protestors, and an Internet “kill switch,” but only if his hand is on it.

While speaking about Egypt, America was reminded that the President saying “the status quo is unsustainable” is an all-purpose justification for whatever Obama wants to defend or support. Thankfully, the nation also learned that our esteemed leader isn’t profoundly deaf, only conveniently hearing-impaired when within earshot of certain voices, and that “passion and dignity” are respectable traits in protestors, but only if no one is waving tea bags around.

Above all, it’s likely that America was relieved to find out that Barack Hussein Obama is open to Sharia law having input into Egyptian governance, as long as radicals pinky-swear to reject terrorism and accept democratic goals.

Summing up his short public statement on the crisis, Obama ended by sharing his opinion that “truth” is defined as a “sense of community.”  Yet, the President retreated from the podium without mentioning the single most glaring truth of all — ousting Mubarak’s regime and allowing the participation of an 80 year-old religious brotherhood, regardless of how minimal the influence, or smooth the transition, will eventually make 30 years of repressive government seem like Egyptian paradise lost.

Hanoi Jane and Jared

Originally posted at American Thinker

Fresh off promoting her Fit and Strong exercise video, without even one iota of evidence, Jane Fonda took to Twitter to blame the tragic shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the cold-blooded murder of six innocent individuals, including a nine-year-old girl, on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Party.

Jane is more focused on condemning uninvolved conservatives than she is on the maniacal murderer who slaughtered half a dozen people in cold blood in a parking lot.  Given the fact that the shooter is an alleged flag-burning mental case, one would think that with her treasonous history, Jane Fonda would applaud Jared Lee Loughner’s America-hating extracurricular activities.

Granted, Jane Fonda has never exhibited an exceptional intellect.  The woman was photographed sitting on an anti-aircraft gun yukking it up with Communist North Vietnamese soldiers with a pot on her head wearing a Vietnamese-made ao-dai pantaloon/wedding dress.  So the idea of Fonda shooting off her mouth without the benefit of verifiable facts, let alone thinking through the hypocrisy of her statements, is not surprising.

Couple Fonda’s inappropriate placing of blame with the liberal media endlessly expressing outrage over the loss of life in Arizona while continuing to shill for abortion rights, and you have another prime example of the politicization of misfortune.

What CNN and Jane Fonda have failed to mention is that, à la Bill Ayers, an obviously disturbed Jared desecrated an American flag on YouTube and cited his favorite reading material as Hitler’s manifesto on the control of government, industry, and health care, Mein Kampf, and Karl Marx’s collectivism handbook,The Communist Manifesto.  Caitlin Parker, Jared’s high school friend, claims that the Tucson shooter leans left.  If that’s true, then the deaths of six are certainly a drop in the bucket when compared to the millions of deaths advocated for since the inception of Roe v. Wade by others who lean left.

Even Jane Fonda now admits that her decision to “encourage” North Vietnamese troops was a “betrayal.”  Suddenly, a woman whose behavior contributed to the deaths of American soldiers is expressing public indignation over the injustice of premature death.  Thus, there is no more qualified a representative than Jane Fonda to stand for liberal absurdity.  Jane epitomizes the hypocrisy of the left, because a left-winger expressing shock over loss of innocent life is like Osama bin Laden voicing opposition to terrorism, or Hanoi Jane herself mourning at a military funeral.

Few would argue that Jared Loughner isn’t disturbed.  However, the reaction is more about hypocrisy and liberal exploitation of tragedy than psychotic injury inflicted by a sick man.  Shamelessly, the day after Blue Dog Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the brain, Jane Fonda blamed Sarah Palin, tweeting, “Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site [sic]. Inciting to violence.”

Fonda, devoid of proof, blamed Palin, Beck, and the Tea Party for a crime that is just another in a long list of examples of what befalls a culture that devalues life.  Discussing the anti-Vietnam War “Winter Soldier” hearings, staged with John Kerry in 1971, Jane might as well have been describing Loughner when apologizing for the American military, saying, “When you put young people into an atrocity-producing situation where enemy and civilian are commingled, where the ‘other side’ is dehumanized, we cannot be surprised.”

Rather than condemnation, pro-choice Fonda, who has personally contributed to the dehumanization of life, should extend thoughtful consideration as to how “commingling enemies and civilians” at a Tucson Safeway political rally could easily result in the loss of life when a deranged madman is added to the mix.  Instead, culpable parties like Jane Fonda look for someone else to blame and tweet hypocritical blather to suppress their own consciences with statements like “@glenbeck guilty too. Shame. It must stop!”

The aged activist ended the flurry of condemning tweets by saying, “@SarahPalin USA holds responsibility. As does the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party.”

Actress Jane Fonda has dedicated a large portion of her adult life to defining a human being as someone who has the choice to kill another human being, and now she has the nerve to blame pro-life Tea Party activists Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for violence in Arizona?  It is not surprising that Fonda continues to do what liberals do — stir dissension in the name of peace while refusing to acknowledge her own contribution to the societal sickness that threatens all our lives, from abortion clinics to impending death panels.

Apparently, Fonda is so busy blaming conservatives she forgets that celebrity has the power to prod toward bloodshed.  In fact, in 2008, as prestigious keynote speaker Fonda visited the state of Arizona to address a Planned Parenthood Annual Founder’s Celebration.  While there, anti-violence peacenik Fonda spoke on behalf of an organization responsible for the unfettered massacre of thousands of unborn children.

Sorry, Jane — your indignation over the deaths of six people, although noble, seems a tad insincere, especially given your speech in Arizona two years ago, where you proudly supported the Arizona/2008 extermination of 10,296 nameless, faceless human beings.

There is no denying that the heartbreak in Tucson calls for a sobering acknowledgment that America’s culture of death has saturated our society and, even in the most innocuous of situations, threatens all our lives.  Even so, the last people who possess the credibility to lecture or blame anyone for cruelty or carnage are liberals, like Jane Fonda, who denounce the appalling death and injury of a small group of victims murdered by a madman after spending the last 38 years heartily applauding the slaughter of 1.3 million helpless babies a year.

%d bloggers like this: