Instead of apologizing to the American people for the lies and her disheveled management of the State Department, Hillary used her testimony to shout at Republicans with a teary eye on 2016.
Recently in Arrogant Elite Category
I happened to catch a snippet of ABC's World News and I could not believe what I was hearing.
To all intents and purposes, ABC has already declared Obama the winner in tonight's debate, a full 2-and-a-half hours before the debate has even started. George Stefanopoulos and Diane Sawyer gushed about Obama's commanding presence, how he is so good in a debate environment and that Romney appears weak in comparison.
Yet another bit of proof that the major media networks are firmly in the pocket of the Obama campaign.
I think that even should Romney crush Obama in the debate, ABC, CBS, and NBC will declare Obama the winner.
In this case, New Hampshire 2nd Congressional District candidate, Democrat Annie Kuster, didn't like that someone was recording her as she was making her campaign rounds. In fact, she disliked the idea so much that she attacked the cameraman, took his camera from him, and walked off with it with a parting "F*** him."
Later she claimed that the cameraman had been harassing her, but as the post from the NH Journal claims, "campaign trackers, bloggers, regular voters and even reporters frequently use handheld cameras to record politicians." If she wants to be a politician she had better get used to being followed around by people with cameras while in public.
Kuster seems to be following the lead of her fellow New Hampshire Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, former member of the House from New Hampshire's First Congressional District and once again a candidate for her old seat.
Shea-Porter often harassed previous First District Congressmen at their public forums, being arrested more than once for her outbursts. But once she took office she made sure all of her 'public' appearances were devoid of anyone who might pull the same thing she had, meaning non-Democrats were decidedly unwelcome. In forums where she could not control the content of those attending, she made sure there was little if any time for anyone to ask her questions she didn't want to answer. She also had undisguised disdain and contempt for those who were not her constituents, meaning anyone in her district that wasn't a Democrat or independent. Republicans in her district were persona non grata. (This I know both directly and indirectly having experienced this discrimination and having heard from others who were treated to the same "You're not a constituent" blow off.) It's no wonder she was defeated by a landslide in 2010, replaced by Republican Frank Guinta, someone who seems to have no problems with helping his constituents regardless of their party affiliations. (Shea-Porter blamed the Chinese for her defeat, an accusation she has never explained.)
So once again we see the how arrogant Democrat politicians have one set of rules for themselves and different rules for everyone else.
The latest bit of wackiness from the watermelon environmentalists in New York are their claims that fracking - the hydraulic fracturing of oil or natural gas bearing rock - will cause an increase in syphilis. And that's not all. Their reasoning? Try this:
They argue that a drilling boom would draw an influx of male workers from other states who would engage in activities of a kind that would spread sexually transmitted diseases.Yeah. Right.
They also contend that a boom would trigger a housing crunch, adding to homelessness and the health ailments that go along with it.
And that increased truck traffic would not only lead to more road fatalities, but would also -- again, no kidding -- discourage people from getting the outdoor exercise they need to stay fit.
It sounds like these folks are related to the West Coast wackos who have been claiming the decrease in population (and businesses) in California is a good thing because "it gives the municipalities and the state the opportunity to plan and build for future population and business growth." They don't seem to understand that there will be no money available to do those things because most of the people who would supply that money through the taxes they pay no longer work or live there. (And we musn't forget the multi-billions of taxpayer dollars that will be spent building a high speed rail system to nowhere, again with money they won't have, for people who don't want it or need it.)
All of this sounds like it came right out of Atlas Shrugged. (One wag commenting on a WSJ opinion piece about California's accelerating economic decline suggested banning businesses from moving out of state, reminiscent of Directive 10-289. At first I thought it was sarcasm, but it wasn't. How sad.)
So, economic growth and the jobs that go with it are a Bad Thing™? I'm not sure how they came to this conclusion, but obviously some deluded soul has sold them on the idea that anything that helps the economy must automatically be bad because....because...umm...it's just bad!!
Next, it's "Government is the only thing we all belong to."
It's merely another part of the Democrat mind-set, being that we owe everything to the government and that we are owned part and parcel by that same government. In other words, they are trying to tell us that we are slaves of the State and that we should be grateful for our indentured status.
What's worse is that at there are a lot of people who look forward to becoming vassals as if that will somehow relieve them of some great burden. It will. They will be relieved of their freedom to choose for themselves. They will become nothing but a disposable cog in the machine that is the State.
Is there anything we as Americans can do to prevent this from happening? Sure.
Vote them out of office. Ridicule them at every opportunity. Show the rest of the people that what these folks are advocating is not a solution, but a trap. There are plenty of examples to prove the point.
One of the biggest in more recent American history was LBJ's Great Society, a social welfare program that trapped millions in poverty and kept them dependent on the government, generation after generation. Minorities that had been making great strides to lift themselves out of poverty after World War II were again made second class citizens, having sold their freedom for a regular check from the government coffers. What's worse is that very folks who pulled this off painted their efforts to re-enslave them as a means to reach some kind of never-to-be-reached 'equality'. They were sold a lie, one too many still continue to believe.
If they need other examples there are plenty to choose from - the Bolshevik Revolution, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas, Chavez's Venezuela, and a whole host of other nations that tried what the Democrats have been attempting to do (and failed miserably). It's a system that is always doomed to fail. Some have failed in spectacular fashion while others have been slowly fading away. But all of them have had one common element - surrendering individual freedoms to the State.
Ron Kessler's tell-all book about the Secret Service gives us a view of the observations and opinions from the agents whose sworn duty it is to protect the President, the First Family, the Vice President and his family, as well as some members of the White House staff.
What I found interesting was how different the various Presidents and their families were, at least in the eyes of the agents assigned to them.
A few excerpts (edited for formatting and clarity):
John & Jacqueline KennedyI find it interesting the way the occupant of the White House treated the Secret Service and the rest of the staff followed along party lines. Republicans were respectful and well liked while Democrats were not. Of course I realize these examples just go back to JFK, so we only have a sample of nine Presidents and their spouses, two Vice Presidents, and one White House staffer. But it is telling.
He: A philanderer of the highest order.
She: She ordered the kitchen help to save all the left-over wine during a State dinner, mixed it with fresh wine and served again during the next White House occasion.
Lyndon & Ladybird Johnson
He: Another philanderer of the highest order. In addition, LBJ was as crude as the day is long. Both JFK and LBJ kept a lot of women in the White House for extramarital affairs, and both had set up "early warning systems" to alert them if/when their wives were nearby. Both Kennedy & Johnson were promiscuous and oversexed men.
She: She was either naive or just pretended to "not know" about her husband's many liaisons.
Richard & Pat Nixon
He: A "moral" man but very odd, weird, paranoid, etc. He had horrible relationship with his family, and in a way, was almost a recluse.
She: She was quiet most of the time.
Nice, decent man. Everyone in the Secret Service was surprised by his downfall.
Gerald & Betty Ford
He: A true gentlemen who treated the Secret Service with respect and dignity. He had a great sense of humor.
She: She drank a lot!
Jimmy & Rosalyn Carter
He: A complete phony who would portray one picture of himself to public and very different in private, e..g., would be shown carrying his own luggage, but the suitcases were always empty; he kept the empty ones just for photo ops. Wanted the people to see him as pious and a non-drinker, but he and his family drank alcohol a lot! He had disdain for the Secret Service, and was very irresponsible with the "football" with nuclear codes. He didn't think it was a big deal and would keep military aides at a great distance. Often did not acknowledge the presence of Secret Service personnel assigned to serve him.
She: She mostly did her own thing.
Ronald & Nancy Reagan
He: The real deal -- moral, honest, respectful, and dignified. They treated Secret Service and everyone else with respect and honor. Thanked everyone all the time. He took the time to know everyone on a personal level. One "favorite" story that has circulated among the Secret Service personnel was an incident early in his Presidency, when he came out of his room with a pistol tucked on his hip. The agent in charge asked: "Why the pistol, Mr. President" He replied, "In case you boys can't get the job done, I can help." It was common for him to carry a pistol. When he met with Gorbachev, he had a pistol in his briefcase. Upon learning that Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice, Reagan said, "Boys will be boys, but boys will not be Presidents." [He obviously either did not know or forgot JFK's and LBJ's sexcapades!]
She: She was very nice but very protective of the President; and the Secret Service was often caught in the middle. She tried hard to control what the President ate, and he would say to the agent, "Come on, you gotta help me out." The Reagans drank wine during State dinners and special occasions only; otherwise, they shunned alcohol; the Secret Service could count on one hand the times they were served wine during their "family dinner". For all the fake bluster of the Carters, the Reagans were the ones who lived life as genuinely moral people.
George H.W. & Barbara Bush
He: Extremely kind and considerate. Always respectful. Took great care in making sure the agents' comforts were taken care of. They even brought them meals, etc. One time Barbara Bush brought warm clothes to agents standing outside at Kennebunkport; one agent was given a warm hat, and when he tried to nicely say "no thanks" even though he was obviously freezing, President Bush said "Son, don't argue with the First Lady, put the hat on." He was the most prompt of the Presidents. He ran the White House like a well-oiled machine.
She: She ruled the house and spoke her mind.
Bill & Hillary Clinton
He: Presidency was one giant party. Not trustworthy -- he was nice mainly because he wanted everyone to like him, but to him life is just one big game and party. Everyone knows of his sexuality.
She: She is another phony. Her personality would change the instant cameras were near. She hated with open disdain the military and Secret Service. She was another one who felt people were there to serve her. She was always trying to keep tabs on Bill Clinton.
An egotistical ass, who was once overheard by his Secret Service detail lecturing his only son that he needed to do better in school or he "would end up like these guys" -- pointing to the agents.
George W. & Laura Bush
He: The Secret Service loved him and Laura Bush. He was also the most physically "in shape" who had a very strict workout regimen. The Bushes made sure their entire administrative and household staff understood they were to respect and be considerate of the Secret Service.
She: She was one of the nicest First Ladies, if not the nicest; she never had any harsh word to say about anyone.
The guy who was the most caring of the Secret Service in the administration.
Barack & Michelle Obama
He: "Clinton all over again" - hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns around and does the opposite -- untrustworthy. He has temper tantrums.
She: She is a complete bitch, who basically hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.
If the Democrats treat their protective details and other staffers poorly, how will they treat the rest of us? I suspect there would be little difference...unless the cameras are on.
I could go into detail about my thoughts about it, but I won't other than to say he was masterful with his humor, his pointed jibes at the President, and his homage to Jimmy Stewart as done by Bob Newhart.
I will however link to a piece by Stuart Schneiderman, giving his analysis of both Eastwood's speech and the reaction by the ever humorless Left.
A small portion of his post:
Representing President Obama by an empty chair is salient, high concept, and very much to the point.'Nuff said.
It offers an image that conceptualizes the Republican critique of the Obama administration. It says that President Obama has failed to lead and has failed to discharge the duties of his office because he is more interested in being out and around campaigning than sitting at his desk in the oval office being the president.
Obama and his campaign staff were sufficiently torqued by the trope to have felt a need to tweet back a picture of the president at a cabinet meeting.
When you have to point out that the chair is occupied, that means that it isn't.
In this case, the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia slapped down the rogue federal agency, ruling that it had exceeded its legal authority in regards to application of its new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.
Under the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provision, the EPA is authorized to regulate sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions that cross state lines. But the Obama EPA ignored legal precedent and the plain text of the statute by enacting limits that far exceeded the scope of the law.While the EPA has not yet responded to Tuesday's court ruling, I expect it will do as it has in the past - ignore the court and continue to push more onerous regulations upon industry and impose fines and penalties on industries failing to meet the impossible conditions of some EPA rules.
One "impossible" condition we've heard mentioned in the media and the blogosphere in the past is the EPA penalizing the petroleum and refining industry for not using a mandated biofuel that doesn't exist. Talk about a Catch-22! But the petroleum industry is fighting back with the American Petroleum Institute filing a lawsuit against the EPA mandate in the D.C Circuit Court.
"EPA's unattainable and absurd mandate forces refiners to pay a penalty for failing to use biofuels that don't even exist," said API Director of Downstream and Industry Operations Bob Greco. "The mandate is effectively an added tax on gasoline manufacturers that could ultimately burden consumers."This sounds like an "protection" racket, something right out of Chicago.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to determine the mandated volume of cellulosic biofuels each year at "the projected volume available." There was no commercial supply of the fuel in 2011, according to the EPA's own records. However, EPA required refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to use or pay for credits to cover 6.6 million gallons of the nonexistent biofuels.
Hey, wait a minute!!! It is right out of Chicago! In this case the corrupt and mob-owned political machine has wormed its way into the EPA, turning it into nothing more yet another mob operation. And who helped turn it into such a thing but Chicago's wholly owned stooge, Barack Obama.
In any case, I expect the court to rule against the EPA on this suit too. I also expect the EPA to ignore it as well, should it come, and continue its destruction of the American economy one rule, one regulation, one fine at a time.
He continues to spout his disconnected-from-reality beliefs that the US is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. Then again he's always seen the US as a threat to everything he's believed in since the 1960's. But the one thing this bomb-thrower he hasn't been willing to do is to go live in one of the Marxist utopias he wants to see the US turned into to see if his beliefs match reality. Over the past 5 decades he's had the chance to go live with his brethren in socialist harmony in the many Marxist/socialist utopias, but has turned down the opportunity. Could it be because he knows that those 'utopias' are really nothing more than brutal police states with no freedom to speak one's mind? Where the only equality is the equality of misery and fear?
If the US is such a horrible place, then why isn't he languishing in some super secret super-max facility as political prisoner? Why hasn't he been killed by right-wing death squads? Because this guy has become nothing more than an armchair revolutionary.
His bomb-throwing days are long gone, and he wants others to fight his fight for him. Could this scenario he's selling be his way of trying to remain relevant? Bill Ayers only problem is that he hasn't been relevant for over 40 years.
But once that kind of claim is made in the MSM, it becomes fact, at least for many of the evidence deficient Left. And as of yet there has been no apology for smearing Tea party member Holmes' name other than a brief editor's note on the ABC News website. Too many folks believing the "yet another mad dog Tea party member has been shooting up Colorado" meme will never see that note. Better that ABC News made the apology on the air.
And the hits keep on coming, even from left-leaning blogs, and rightfully so.
OK then! There's some guy on the internet with the same name. That is literally all Ross had--no other connection, not one reason to even remotely suspect that it's the same Holmes. Just that there is a guy with that name, on the internet.But the media in general has to take some of the blame, particularly television. Their obsessive need to be "first with the story", the ongoing 24-hour news cycle, and the search for ratings has been behind a lot of the problems. With these kinds motivations is it any wonder why Matt Welch has dubbed them as "half-assed media"?
That astonishingly stupid speculation led the geniuses at Breitbart to rebut the calumny with their own guy-named-James-Holmes, this one a registered Democrat. So there! "There are certainly more facts in our documents than in ABC News' irresponsible speculations," Joel Pollak wrote, hilariously and maddeningly.
Point being: Never, ever listen to anything Ross reports unless and until it has been confirmed by another, better, reporter.
Undeterred by how wrong they got the Columbine shootings 13 years ago, or how disgustingly politicized they turned Jared Loughner's 2011 rampage, the humans who work for and talk with journalistic outlets are again rushing to speculative judgment about Jim Holmes, the suspected Batman murderer in Aurora, Colorado.It's the old "If it bleeds, it ledes" mentality magnified. Take a tragedy, sensationalize the hell out of it, skip fact checking (or minimalize it at best), fling out all kinds of unsubstantiated theories and speculation, and then move on to other stories before the facts of the tragedy come out. They leave it to others to pick up the pieces of the truth they so blithely shattered in their need to get the story out before their competition. It doesn't matter to them that they may have damaged or destroyed the reputations of people unconnected to the tragedy.
We see this again and again and it's always the same. Too often the news operations try to make the news rather than just reporting the news. Along with that many reports resemble editorials rather than actual reports, with reporters and news anchors offering opinion as if it were fact. (I actually remember when the local TV stations here in New England aired editorials by their news directors and editors, labeling them as editorials. There was no confusion about them. That practice has all but disappeared, and with it, the viewing public's trust.)
And the MSM wonders why an increasing number of people have little trust or faith in them to report the news?
Writes Frank Martin in response to our Marxist In Chief:
Just want to be clear Mr. President, in the three years of your Administration, you haven't built a goddamned thing.And should the President continue to provide such moments of clarity to the voting public, he can count on losing the election in November and being booted out of the White House bag and baggage.
My father was self employed all of his post-military service life. My father made furniture. He interviewed his customers at their home, sketched their desires on a piece of paper and then went to his workshop and created the piece from scratch. No one taught him to do this, he figured it out on his own. He took the time, the initiative and applied it to the task. He didn't apply for a job, he became the job. He was both artist and engineer. He was also his own man. He taught me that there is a dignity to work that no amount of good intentions can replace.
He was never rich, but he was free and that was the point of it all. It was never about the money. If people want to sit in envy my father, envy the freedom he had and not the money he made from his labor. He came and went as he pleased, he answered to no man but himself.
He used to say that at the end of the day what we all want from money is to be able to say "Screw you" and suffer no negative consequences from the act. Money simply buys the ability to walk away. My father never had a lot of money, but he was free.
In my 52 years of life, I have never heard anything from any politician that has left me filled with rage as the words the President has used to describe men like my father, the men of this world who live their life with the goal of being dependent on no one and only wish to be left alone.
I want to thank the President for providing me with a moment of clarity.
"Plunge In CO2 Output Due To Natural Gas Fracking"
With a dramatic decline in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, many of the arguments being made by the greens have been undermined. But you won't see reports like this in the MSM.
The most underreported recent environmental story has been the dramatic decline in energy-related carbon emissions -- nearly back to mid-1990s levels, and falling.That which does not fit the narrative must be ignored, at least when it comes to Gaia-huggers and watermelons and their beliefs.
Maybe it's because that story just doesn't fit the left's mantra that traditional energy sources are destroying the environment.
But then I came across this over at Maggie's Farm and it struck such a chord in me I had to watch it again and again. And every time I watched it I became both angrier and sadder at the same time.
While this video did not come from a real debate (it's from a new HBO series The Newsroom), the fact that this character spoke his mind rather than act like a gladhanding politician by giving a 'safe' answer in order to at least not lose ground to his competitors shows that at least in some screenwriter's mind, someone recognizes the problem we have with this nation. (I am not a fan of HBO, particularly after the hatchet job they did on Sarah Palin.)
It all comes down to this, as expressed by one commenter on the original YouTube page:
We WERE the greatest country in the world until socialism, lawyers, unions, and television lulled us into mediocrity. They convinced us to give up our lofty pursuits for the security of never failing.While the sentiment is a little simplistic, it does get to the heart of the matter. Over the last 5 decades we have been told by our supposed 'betters' that by merely being American that we are somehow inherently evil, that we must pay for the crimes of our long-dead forebears and that we must apply late 20th/early 21st century 'sensibilities' to 18th, 19th, and early 20th century actions, laws, and morality. How incredibly stupid is that?
But we've seen this kind of stupidity multiplying over the years and the fact that it no longer surprises me brought me up short. When did I get so jaded that I no longer point out such stupidity?
It's been a while since I've pointed it out and ended up looking through the Weekend Pundit archives and came across something I posted a little over three years ago. It illustrates just how much damage we have allowed to be done to this once great nation, how we've been fooled into becoming nothing but a mediocre nation more concerned with feelings and not about facts.
Unless we change that this nation will go out with a whimper, and woe to us if that is the case.
It's a hard sell for them when emissions have been falling at a more rapid pace than they demanded.
Much to the surprise (and, one suspects, the chagrin) of the deranged doomsaying wing of the environmental movement, new forecasts of US CO2 emission are out and they point to an even steeper drop than the last set of predictions.There are a couple of reasons for the drop, the two biggest being the replacement of less efficient vehicles, industrial/commercial/residential equipment, and older power generation systems with new and more energy efficient ones; and a drop in economic activity which usually decreases the demand for energy and in turn decreases carbon dioxide emissions.
No cap and trade, no huge new taxes on oil, no draconian driver restrictions, no air conditioning bans, no rationing -- and the US is on track to cut its CO2 emissions 17 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 -- and to keep cutting our emissions levels beyond that.
I doubt very much the choice to replace old equipment was made purely in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Instead it was likely made due to economics, as newer equipment tends to be more efficient and requires less maintenance than old equipment which in turn lowers operating costs. The lower emissions are a byproduct of this efficiency.
I know in the recent past the US was decreasing its carbon dioxide emissions at a faster rate than those countries who signed on to the Kyoto treaty and I think we'll probably find that is still the case. But what this is telling us is that Kyoto was not the means of reducing CO2 output. In fact, some signatories have seen their CO2 emissions continue to rise.
In any case, the United States of America is living proof that there are more ways to address environmental concerns than the green movement as a whole is willing to admit.Indeed.
The truth is that if CO2 emissions are going to come down, it's going to happen the American way rather than the Greenpeace way. Instead of flinging muck and howling curses at the most successful carbon cutting large economy in the world, maybe a few more greens here and there will start thinking about how to spread the magic around.
Yesterday, they went the racist route, denigrating Justice Clarence Thomas after the ObamaCare decision.
Today, the took the sexist route, with the DNC slamming ObamaCare foes with sexual slurs.
Talk about hypocrites!