Posts Tagged ‘North Korea’

Obama, How Have You Failed America? Let Me Count The Ways

June 2, 2010

I can’t get away from Obama’s arrogant boast from last year.  It has just been thoroughly destroyed too many times, in too many ways:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

Let’s examine this on a clause-by-clause basis and see how Obama has fared:

This was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick? Another way to put it is “This was the moment companies dropped their health care coverage so every sick person could one day lay helplessly in their own filth on Medicaid.”

(Fortune) — The great mystery surrounding the historic health care bill is how the corporations that provide coverage for most Americans — coverage they know and prize — will react to the new law’s radically different regime of subsidies, penalties, and taxes. Now, we’re getting a remarkable inside look at the options AT&T, Deere, and other big companies are weighing to deal with the new legislation.

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That to go along with ObamaCare now acknowledged to cost FAR more than Democrats falsely said, and along with the fact that this boondoggle has forced businesses to write down billions of profits that could have been used to create jobs.

Good jobs for the jobless? How about any jobs whatsoever for the jobless?  Unemployment was 7.6% when Bush left office.  Obama promised it wouldn’t get over 8% because of his stimulus, but he lied.  And now it’s 9.9% and unlikely to get much lower for a long time to come.

When the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal? Let me just say three words: Gulf of Mexico.  The oceans are rising due to millions and millions of gallons of oil that Obama has done nothing to even slow down.  I mean, my God: it took him like six weeks to even tell us that he was responsible.

This was the moment when we ended a war? How about this was the moment when we tried to take credit for George Bush ending a war? Just what war has Obama ended?  The general in command in Afghanistan says its a “bleeding ulcer” over there, and that “nobody’s winning.”  So it’s probably not that war.  And it’s hard to imagine he’s talking about North and South Korea, given the fact that those countries are on the verge of total war in a situation that has gone to hell during his misrule.  Nor is it likely he’s talking about Iran, given the fact that his fool policy that even his own Secretary of State once openly mocked as “irresponsible and frankly naive” has completely fallen apart, and now Iran can build nuclear weapons any time it wants to.

And secured our nation? Oh, yeah.  You’ve done a hell of a good job on that one, Barry Hussein:

Washington (CNN) — For the first time in nearly four years, a majority of Americans think that a terrorist attack is likely to occur somewhere in the United States in the next few weeks, according to a new national poll. . . .

Fifty-five percent of people questioned say an act of terrorism in the U.S. over the next few weeks is likely, up 21 points from last August. Forty-three percent said such an attack is not likely, down 21 points from August. . . .

The survey’s release comes one day after the Obama administration released its first National Security Strategy, a 52-page outline of the president’s strategic approach and priorities on battling terrorism.

And now here’s the very last one, tumbling into the toilet like the turd-in-chief is tumbling in the polls:

And restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.  Here’s what Obama’s “restoration of America’s image” actually looks like:

Japan’s prime minister resigns over Okinawa base
By Mari Yamaguchi The Associated Press
Posted: 06/01/2010 07:52:12 PM PDT

TOKYO – Embattled Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said Wednesday he was resigning over his broken campaign promise to move a U.S. Marine base off the southern island of Okinawa.

The prime minister had faced growing pressure from within his own party to resign ahead of July’s upper house elections. His approval ratings had plummeted over his bungled handling of the relocation of the Marine Air Station Futenma, reinforcing his public image as an indecisive leader.

Or let me put it this way: “You have restored America’s image, Mister President Obama-san.  We now revere your country as never before due to your most wonderful greatness.  Now will you please take all your American crap and your American prestige and get the hell out of our country?  It is only because we honor YOU so much, Obama-san, that we want America the hell out of Okinawa after being here for 65 years.”

“We had so much contempt for Bush – you see, we don’t even call him Bush-san – that we allowed America to remain during his presidency.  It is only because of our profound and deep admiration of you that we are kicking your ass to the curb now, Obama-san.  You are last, best, greatest hope on earth, Obama-san.  Now please not to let door hit your skinny ass on way out.”

So let’s tally up: fail until we die of socialist health care, fail big time until our unemployment benefits run out, fail all over the Gulf of Mexico and likely all over Florida and then the East Coast, fail until we cut and run, fail while getting ready for the next massive terrorist attack, and, finally, fail ingloriously all over the world.

I know, I know: I didn’t tell the truth.  I’m nowhere NEAR through with the list of all the ways that Obama has completely failed America.  Obama has failed to control spending as our deficit soars like a rocket ship.  Obama has failed to secure our financial system as our banks have closed at MORE THAN DOUBLE THE RATE OF LAST YEAR.  Obama has failed to act on illegal immigration.  Etcetera.  Etcetera.  Obama has failed his own rhetoricObama has just failed, period.  Obama has even failed to kick his smoking habit.

Let me try to paraphrase Obama’s speech above in a way that properly corrects the record:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to realize that we had the absolute suckiest president in our nation’s entire history at the very time we needed a good one the most.

.

Iran Can Make Two Nuclear Bombs RIGHT NOW: Thanks For Armageddon, Barry Hussein!

June 1, 2010

Thanks for bringing Armageddon to the planet, Mr. Obama.  Because the world didn’t have enough problems.

Obama once so arrogantly said:

“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

And yet here we are, on day 41 of the environmental disaster overwhelming the Gulf of Mexico, with the oceans RISING faster than ever due to millions of barrels of oil that Obama could not be more completely useless to do anything to stop.

Which is why Chris Matthews – he who’s leg shivered whenever Obama spoke – has joined Democrat strategist James Carville in decrying Obama’s pathetic response to what may well be the world’s worst environmental disaster.

Way to heal the planet, Mister complete failure-in-chief.

“Ended a war?”  Bush ended a war in Iraq – in spite of you demagoguing and demonizing him for it.  And then to take credit for the success of Iraq after Bush secured the victory.  As for Obama’s war in Afghanistan, “Nobody’s winning,” and there’s no end in sight.  It’s a bleeding ulcer, as General McChrystal calls it.

How is Obama doing at “ending a war” in North Korea, where Kim Jong Il knows Obama is weak and appeasing.  North Korea committed an overt act of war in its unprovoked sinking a South Korean naval ship with 46 sailors murdered, and then ratcheted up the tension with insane rhetoric, knowing that Obama will cave and offer concessions rather than risk a confrontation.

And Obama certainly hasn’t done anything but help Iran by giving them all the time they needed to build nuclear weapons so they can kick off Armageddon and usher in the arrival of their Twelfth Imam.

IAEA: Iran has over 2 tons enriched uranium -2 bombs’ worth
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
06/01/2010 02:26

VIENNA — Iran has amassed more than two tons of enriched uranium, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Monday in a report that heightened Western concerns about the country preparing to produce a nuclear weapon.

Two tons of uranium would suffice for two nuclear warheads, although Iran says it does not want weapons and is only pursuing civilian nuclear energy.

On enrichment, the report said Iran had now enriched 2,427 kilograms to just over three percent level. That means shipping out 1,200 kilograms (as proposed by the IAEA late in 2009) now would still leave Iran with more than enough material to make a nuclear weapon. That makes the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil unattractive to the U.S and its allies

If the IAEA says that Iran has enough nuclear material to make two bombs, it probably has enough material to make 200.  This is the UN agency that has been wrong all along.  It was a terribly wrong IAEA report that gave despicable Democrats the ammunition to attack Bush when he tried to warn the country about the growing threat of Iran back when there was still plenty of time to do something about it.

Meanwhile, Israel is on the brink of war with the rest of the Middle East over a completely staged “massacre.” And one of the precursors setting this thing off is the realization by both the Israelis and the Muslims that Obama most definitely does NOT have Israel’s back.  The Muslims have been waiting for this moment since Israel became a nation: for the time when a weak, appeasing fool refused for the first time in six decades to support Israel in its greatest hour of need.

The beast is coming.

Revelation chapter 6 tells us that in the last days there will be terrible wars, great economic calamity, and awful famine.  And the beast will ride in on his white horse and appear to have a solution for everything.

And the naive fool of all fools who so arrogantly boasted that HE would be “the One” to create a global utopia will instead be the one to usher in the time of the worst dictator in human history.

Turd-in-Chief Sinking To Bottom Of Toilet In Latest Poll

May 27, 2010

The Tennessee Valley just experienced its worst flood in 500 years.  At least 31 people were killed, and over $1.5 billion in damage was done to the region.

And Barack Hussein Obama never bothered to even show up and tell desperate victims, “I feel your pain,” before jetting back to the White House.

I mean, lest we forget, George Bush at least flew over the Hurricane Katrina devastation.

Now, maybe Obama has an excuse for not showing up in Nashville.  Maybe he’s too occupied in doing absolutely nothing to deal with the massive disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

From Politico:

The gulf oil spill catastrophe has entered a new phase, as Washington looks increasingly weak and unable to control the disaster or the political narrative.

Congress will do what Congress does best: hold hearings, express outrage and threaten subpoenas. The White House will continue to do what it’s doing – send out long, detailed memos to the media outlining “the ongoing response” to the oil spill. But BP and the Obama administration are married on this disaster – Coast Guard chief Thad Allen admitted that the federal government can’t take over the cleanup because it doesn’t have the expertise to take over.

Let’s see.  Obama took the most political contributions from BP over a twenty year period, despite having less than a three year career in national politics.  His administration approved of the BP project that blew up and started gushing oil.  His administration issued an environmental waver to the BP platform only eleven days before it went boomHis administration did absolutely nothing for NINE DAYS while the crisis turned into a national disaster.  And as we speak, the Obama administration doesn’t have so much as a freaking clue about what to do for what is turning into the world’s worst oil disaster.

And let’s not forget that, only three weeks before this disaster exploded and spewed millions of gallons of oil all over us, that it was OBAMA saying “Drill, baby, drill.”

From ABC:

President Obama: Drill, Baby, Drill
March 31, 2010 6:01 AM

On Wednesday morning at Joint Base Andrews Naval Air Facility in Washington, DC, President Obama will announce that his administration will allow the lease sale to go forward for oil and gas exploration 50 miles off of the Virginia coast — the first new sales of offshore oil and gas in the Atlantic in more than two decades.

The Department of Interior will also allow seismic exploration for oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf from Delaware all the way South to the middle of Florida, to assess the quantity and location of potential oil and gas resources.  A White House official says that the president will also approve a lease sale in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, while canceling another lease sale in Alaska’s Bristol Bay because of environmental concerns. (Lease sales in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas are essentially being suspended pending further scientific review.)

The official says that “To set America on a path to energy independence, the President believes we must leverage our diverse domestic resources by pursuing a comprehensive energy strategy.”

So much for “blame Bush.”  Blame OBAMA.  His paws are all over this baby.

James Carville, a lifelong Democrat strategist, pretty much says Obama has failed in just about every possible way he could have failed.

CARVILLE: “The President of the United States could have come down here. He could have been involved with the families of these 11 people. He could have commandeered the things. We could have sent the Woods Hole people. He could have sent the Scripps on research vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. He could have implemented a plan in anticipation of this. You know, right, he can’t exactly fill the hole up. Last night I was on Larry King, the CEO, the former CEO of the Shell. They said they got 85 percent of the stuff cleaned up in the Gulf of Saudi Arabia. He could be commandeering tankers and making BP bring tankers in and clean this up. They could the deploying people to the coast right now. He could be deploying people to the coast. He could be with the corps of engineers and the Coast Guard with these people in Plaquemines Parish, doing something about these regulations. These people are crying. They’re begging for something down here. And it just looks like he’s not involved in this! Man, you have got to get down here and take control of this! Put somebody in charge of this and get this thing moving! We’re about to die down here!”

I guess you weren’t doing anything that would have kept you from going to Tennessee, after all.

Just imagine if Karl Rove had said that about George Bush’s failure in Katrina.  Man, journalists would have been all over that the way Great White sharks get all over bloody meat.

According to the news, Obama has golfed every single weekend since the BP-Gulf disaster hit some 36 days ago.  At least he’s doing something, I suppose.

Meanwhile, North Korea is going rabid and escalating saber-rattling war tensions to a level that we haven’t seen in fifty years.  And, oh, yeah, Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons to go along with their being a terrorist state bent on international jihad.

And Obama’s policies in Afghanistan are bogging down, and only cut-and-run is looming ahead.  General Stanley McChrystal says Marjah “is a bleeding ulcer right now.”  And the access McChrystal granted to reporters “drove home the fact that President Barack Obama’s plan to begin pulling American troops out of Afghanistan in July 2011 is colliding with the realities of the war.”

Like virtually every conservative and every human being with a functioning brain cell was saying would happen six months ago.  Liberals have been arguing for years that we needed to have a withdrawal date so our enemies could know we were going to cut and run, and our friends would be made aware that we weren’t a reliable ally.  And whowouldathunk such a brain-dead strategy wouldn’t work???

The McClatchy article which has the above quotes goes on to say:

There aren’t enough U.S. and Afghan forces to provide the security that’s needed to win the loyalty of wary locals. The Taliban have beheaded Afghans who cooperate with foreigners in a creeping intimidation campaign. The Afghan government hasn’t dispatched enough local administrators or trained police to establish credible governance, and now the Taliban have begun their anticipated spring offensive.

“This is a bleeding ulcer right now,” McChrystal told a group of Afghan officials, international commanders in southern Afghanistan and civilian strategists who are leading the effort to oust the Taliban fighters from Helmand.

In other words, Obama, who demonized Bush up one side and down the other, and demonized Bush’s successful strategy that ultimately won the war in Iraq, is failing.  And hanging on his own petard.

What’s it like to be such a terrible president that you make George Bush look magnificent in comparison, Barry Hussein???

The disaster isn’t the troops’ fault; it’s the Commander-in-Chief’s.  Abraham Lincoln fired general after general until he found Ulysses S. Grant; the problem here is that Obama needs to shitcan Obama, only we all know he won’t.

Weakness is as weakness does.  Or, to put it another way, Obama’s foreign policy is “weakness through weakness.”

On the domestic front, our economy is circling the toilet.  Unemployment is up, mortgage delinquencies are up, and market leading indicators are mostly down.

Obama shoved his health care by way of an immoral and undemocratic process that has a whopping 63% of likely voters wanting repealed before it grows into an even bigger monster.

Then Obama demonized Arizona over its attempt to finally do something to stop the tsunami of illegal immigration which Obama clearly has no serious interest in tackling.  In spite of the fact that a massive 69% of Americans say the Arizona law is either “about right” or that it “doesn’t go far enough.”

That didn’t stop Obama from appearing with the President of Mexico – in spite of that countries’ incredibly harsh immigration policies – and join him in demonizing Arizona:

Well, at least Obama didn’t bow down to Calderone.  At least I don’t think he did.  He’s bowed down before so many other leaders, it’s getting harder and harder to keep track.

Obama couldn’t care less what the American people think.  We’re gnats to him.  Insects.  He’s “the president of the world,” after all.

Incompetent, arrogant, and detached.  You’d think that would be a winning combination.

But it’s not.

From Rasmussen, May 25, 2010:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

Have you ever noticed how turds tend to sink to the bottom of the toilet bowl before you flush them?

There’s your metaphor for Obama: a turd sinking to the bottom of the bowl.

Obama Foreign Policy: Weakness Is As Weakness Does

May 24, 2010

I really liked the Flopping Aces title (which appears below) better.  But I had to come up with something different.

Forrest Gump came up with a more fitting line, too.  But that one would have been reduplicative, too.

So I combined the two together.

Obama foreign policy: weakness through weakness
Posted by: DrJohn

On March 26, in what was clearly an act of war, a North Korean torpedo sank a south Korean ship, killing 46 sailors. The Obama administration reacted by expressing a strong amount of “caution.” Two months later, Hillary Clinton finally got around to calling the situation “highly precarious.” The Obama administration supported South Korea’s move to cut trade with North Korea but then made clear it was afraid – afraid of pissing off North Korea:

“We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation,”

This has become the hallmark of Obama foreign policy. Hillary Clinton has become Neville Chamberlain. I expect to hear that she’s gotten a “Peace with honour” accord with North Korea that will include a bundle of concessions. The US has been frustrated at the hands of the North Koreans before. A quick search for “North Korea reneges” yields 29,700 hits. But it’s not just North Korea. It seems to be the official policy of the Obama administration to have its ass kicked over and over and over.

Obama unilaterally decided to drop a plan for missile defense for Eastern Europe. Obama hoped to get support for sanctions against Iran in return without any commitment from Russia.

Obama’s climb down is likely to be seen by Russia as a victory for its uncompromising stance.

Today, however, analysts pointed out the decision would help Obama secure Moscow’s co-operation on a possible new sanctions package against Iran and would further his desire to “reset” relations with Moscow following a dismal period under the Bush administration.

How did that work out? Not so well:

Brazil, China, Russia: No To Iranian Sanctions

So what does one do when this approach fails? Why, you keep repeating it if you’re Obama.

Iran has been thumbing its nose at the US continuously. During the Presidential campaign Obama asserted that the world must keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What does Obama do?

“Weakness Through Weakness.”  That about sums it up.

The fit is soon truly going to hit the shan, and we will have the greatest appeaser since Neville Chamberlain running the show when it happens.

Jimmy Carter is thrilled that he is no longer the biggest disgrace the White House has ever seen, and Neville Chamberlain is sitting up in his grave in expectation that his own title of “World’s Worst Appeasing Weakling” will soon be given to a better useful idiot, as well.

When Iran obtains its nuclear weapons, no one outside of Iran will be more responsible than Barack Obama and the Democrat Party:

From the Los Angeles Times:

Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough
.
December 05, 2007|Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian, Times Staff Writers

DES MOINES — Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

George Bush TRIED to confront Iran over its nuclear weapons program several years ago.  And Democrats said, “NO WAY!  WE ARE WEAKLINGS, WE ARE COWARDS, WE ARE APPEASERS, AND WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO THWART AND UNDERMINE YOU, AND TURN A GROWING DANGER INTO A FUTURE WORLD WAR III.”

What did now-Vice President Joe Biden say?

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

And what did now-President Barack Obama say?

Obama … also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

What I’ve been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed, and that we needed to oppose George Bush again,” Obama said. “We can’t keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which they manipulate intelligence.”

To put it in terms of Obama’s own rhetoric, we SHOULD have given Bush the benefit of the doubt.  Because Obama was entirely dead wrong and Bush was completely dead right.

Remember that policy of engagement and consensus-building that has gotten absolutely nowhere while Iran has raced toward a nuclear bomb?

And where has that got us?

Washington Times headline from March 2010:

CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes

Now we know, in light of an ominously developing history, that Democrats were complete idiots and demagogues who were weak and appeasing and utterly unwilling to face a clear and growing danger.

And who was on the right side?

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

We were fools in 2008.  We elected a fool to the White House.  We put fools in charge of Congress.  And now we are on the verge of paying a terrible price for our foolishness.

Nobody knows what North Korea is going to do.  They are frankly nuts.  They have openly threatened war over anyone trying to call them out for initiating what is clearly a clear act of war.

And Iran?  They are possibly even more nuts.  They’re not just paranoid isolationists with their twitching fingers poised over the nuclear button; they are crazed religious lunatics who believe that starting World War III will force their beloved Twelfth Imam to reveal himself and lead the whole world to conversion to Islam.

At the very, very least, if we’re really lucky, all Iran will do is finance and foment international terrorism and attack us with nuclear-armed impunity.  If we’re kind of lucky, Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz and send gasoline prices soaring to $14/gallon until we prostrate ourselves and provide a suitable package of concessions.  If we’re not too lucky, Iran will launch a conventional attack against Israel along with a host of Muslim allies.  And if we’re quite unlucky, Iran will initiate World War III by launching a full-scale nuclear attack.

And we can thank Barack Hussein Obama that his policy of “weakness through weakness” is bringing us ever closer to the red fangs of an insane global war, just as Neville Chamberlain’s policy did before him during the 1930s.

Primary Day Presidential Approval Poll Points To Vicious Anal Rape Awaiting Democrats

May 20, 2010

Now, I know, the headline is kind of confusing.  Most Democrats love nothing more than a nice anal raping.  So liberals will come here thinking, “Oh, good!”

But, trust me, they won’t enjoy the one that’s coming in November.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. Today’s rating is the lowest earned by the president since the passage of his health care proposal two months ago (see trends).

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has seen his advantage over Republican hopefuls shrink dramatically following a New York Times accusation that he exaggerated his Vietnam military service. Against Linda McMahon, Blumenthal’s lead is down to just three points.

John McCain still leads in his primary battle, but his level of support is hovering just over 50%.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters now support offshore oil drilling. That’s up from 58% right after the oil spill began in the Gulf of Mexico but down eight from a peak of 72% support in March.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.  Those figures also reflect the weakest ratings for the president since the health care bill became law. The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of the President has been 52% positive over the past week.

A month ago, Rasmussen Reports became the first firm to show Joe Sestak closing the gap on Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. With other firms showing Specter ahead by twenty points or more, our poll showing a toss-up was described as an “outlier” and “well outside the lines of existing polling in the race.” As in Massachusetts, it turns out that the Rasmussen poll was simply the first to capture the changing dynamic of the race. The final Rasmussen poll on the race showed Sestak winning by five. He won by eight.

In the general election, the latest polling shows Sestak in a very close race with Pat Toomey.

In Arkansas, the latest polling shows Republican John Boozman holding a wide lead over whichever Democrat wins the run-off. In Kentucky, Rand Paul also starts out ahead. Rasmussen Reports will release updated polling for Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and Kentucky in the near future.

(More Below)

Fifty-five percent (55%) would like to see an immigration law like Arizona’s for their own state. Most voters (56%) also favor repeal of the recently passed health care law.

Obama used to lead chants saying, “Fired up!  Ready to go!”  And now the people who WANT to fire Obama have a 19-point advantage over the people who want to keep him.  Do you have any idea what a tsunami of righteous anger is going to wash over Democrats?

55% of American voters want to see the Arizona immigration law that Obama has repeatedly and falsely demonized in their own state.  And 56% of voters want to see Obama’s signature ObamaCare repealed.  What has this man done but either screw the American people or fail to lead?

Obama’s response to the fact that Americans overwhelmingly support the Arizona law?  Ratchet up his illegitimate demonization of Arizona.

And as we speak, 68% of Americans want offshore drilling.  It’s only a matter of time before they realize what an amoral weasel Obama has been with drilling, basically being against it before he was for it before he was against it again.

Obama endorsed slimeball Arlen Specter, who has now been officially rejected by Democrats after previously having being totally rejected by Republicans.  Like Specter himself, nobody wants Obama.  He is now at least 0-for-4 in endorsing candidates who then got dumped by voters.  He couldn’t be more radical, or more out of touch with the American people.

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – Voters rejected one of President Barack Obama’s hand-picked candidates and forced another into a runoff, the latest sign that his political capital is slipping beneath a wave of anti-establishment anger.

Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president’s active involvement, raising doubts about Obama’s ability to help fellow Democrats in this November’s elections.

The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter’s loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania’s Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama’s influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.

And the guy who defeated Obama’s handpicked candidate Specter has all but stated that the Obama administration offered him an illegal bribe to drop out of the race and let Specter win.

[Update, Sunday, May 23: The UPI has an article out today which clearly states that Joe Sestak claims the White House did in fact offer him a job if he pulled out of the race against Arlen Specter.  End update].

Thanks to Obama’s utterly failed policy that even Hillary Clinton said would fail hideously, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons, and will “fundamentally transform” the Middle East into a terrifying nightmare-awaiting bloodbath-status.  And Obama is so occupied with his failure regarding Iran that he has demonstrated himself to be completely unfit to deal with North Korea.

An international report has just determined that North Korea sank – in an aggressive and unprovoked act of war – a South Korean navy ship.  This is clearly an escalation of aggression that rivals anything the communist nation has committed since the end of the Korean War.

How has Obama done anything but miserably fail with this regime?

And thanks to spending which dwarfs anything ever seen before in the history of the human race, Barack Obama has lost any and all leverage with China to do anything about either crisis.

It is hard to imagine how Obama could have failed worse.

The American people are furious.  And they are going to take it out on Democrats who couldn’t deserve it more.

Iran Sucessfully Launches Satellite: Ballistic Nuclear Missiles Not Far Off

February 4, 2010

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius.  At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

Iran’s Satellite Launch a Signal of Missile Progress, Analysts Say
By Turner Brinton
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 12 February 2009

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,” Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

Israel certainly does, given the fact that Iran has repeatedly vowed that “Israel is a cancer” which they one day intend to “wipe off the map.”

The fact that Ezekiel prophesied some 2600 years ago that Iran (Persia) would one day attack Israel in the last days along with a coalition that looks eerily like the one being assembled today.

About a quarter of Israelis have said that they would leave Israel if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would literally mean the death of the Jewish state.  Israeli leaders cannot possibly allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

And time is running out on them.

But it’s running out on the United States and Europe, also.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack.  Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran?  I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran.  And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s.  Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad.  The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will.  They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat.  Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat.  They couldn’t have been more wrong.

I wrote something about Iran’s nuclear program in May of 2008, and I stand by it:

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

I also repeatedly pointed out in that three part series that countries such as Russia and China had protected Saddam Hussein by blocking every single United Nations resolution that could have prevented the Iraq War:

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way.  They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq.  Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose.  And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT.  Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

Even Europe Recognizes Obama’s Spinelessness

September 26, 2009

The UK Telegraph offers this take on our “President Pantywaist”:

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist restores the satellite states to their former owner

By Gerald Warner  Last updated: September 18th, 2009

Barack Obama’s chances of re-election in three and a half years’ time may be evaporating at unprecedented speed, but his presidential ambitions could still be realised in another direction. He would be a shoo-in to win the next Russian presidential election, so high is his popularity now running in the land of the bear and the knout. Obama has done more to restore Russia’s hegemonial potential in Eastern and Central Europe than even Vladimir Putin.

His latest achievement has been to restore the former satellite states to dependency on Moscow, by wimping out of the missile defence shield plan. This follows on his surrender last July when he voluntarily sacrificed around a third of America’s nuclear capability for no perceptible benefit beyond a grim smile from Putin. If there is one thing that fans the fires of aggression it is appeasement.

Despite propaganda to the contrary, 58 per cent of Poles were in favour of the missile shield. But small nations must assess the political will of larger powers. Thanks to President Pantywaist’s supine policies, the former satellite states can see that they are fast returning to their former status. The American umbrella cannot be relied upon on a rainy day. They have been here before. Poles remember how a leftist US president sold them out to Russia at Tehran and Yalta. The former Czechoslovakia was betrayed twice: in 1938 and 1945.

If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends. The satellites will pragmatically accept their restored subordination, without openly acknowledging it, and co-operate with their dangerous neighbour, ushering in a new generation of Finlandisation.

Bringing unstable states like Georgia into Nato would be a liability, not a defence. The crazy notion of a US-Nato-Russian combined defence policy has all the staying power of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Ronald Reagan, assisted by Margaret Thatcher, implemented the sensible principle that Russia, from the time of Peter the Great, respects only strength and steely political will. A pushover in the Oval Office is the best news Russian expansionists have heard since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Barack Obama is selling out America and, by extension, the entire West. This is a catastrophe for America and the wider world.

This comes on the heels of French President Nicholas Sarkozy’s take on Obama as literally living in a dream world:

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were every bit as amazing:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

Political Castaway provides a quick recap of Obama’s foreign policy:

Iraq: less stable; Americans due to withdrawal; violence on the rise.

Iran engaged; engagement failed; Iran emboldened; Iran nuclear program moving forward with unabashed zeal.

Hamas supported; Israel—America’s one true ally in the Middle East—betrayed.

Afghanistan: situation volatile; commander requests more troops to win; Obama resistant.

Libyan government emboldened; crazy UN speech smiled on by US.

Missile Defense culled; Russia appeased.

Guantanamo set to close; no solution to do so; nation less safe; terrorists recently arrested.

He didn’t mention other events such as North Korea repeatedly thumbing their nuclear-tipped nose at us or Obama making a mockery out of ethics and law by supporting dictator Zelaya over the Honduran Constitution.  But it’s still a pretty good list for brief rundown purposes.

Here’s my caption for all of this:

Obama_Dont-suck-thumb

French President Says Obama Lives In A Fantasy World

September 25, 2009

Big Government has the fuller story.  The key exchange:

Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”

Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”

The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were every bit as amazing:

“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”

Obama has a “virtual” call for global disarmament.  And Sarkozy basically suggests Obama defecate into one hand and wish into the other, and then see which hand gets full first.

But here’s the thing: Obama is going to offer the hand full of wishes to Iran, North Korea, and other enemies of freedom.  Guess which hand he’s going to keep offering to the rest of us?

Reminds me of the old song from Supertramp:

Dreamer, you stupid little dreamer;
So now you put your head in your hands, oh no!
I said “Far out, – What a day, a year, a life it is!”
You know, – Well you know you had it comin’ to you,
No there’s not a lot I can do.

Only the stupid little dreamer the Supertramp song was referring to was probably not the new leader of the free world.

Hillary Clinton, Secretary Of Irrelevance

August 11, 2009

“My husband is not secretary of state, I am,” she snapped. “I am not going to be channeling my husband.”

When you have to remind people that you are the Secretary of State, you’ve got a bit of a clout problem: namely, you just don’t have much.

Hillary sounds so much more snippy and harpie-like live and in color:

It’s even more obvious when you’re reminding them who’s boss somewhere in the Congo.  After your husband just got back from a triumphant foreign trip from North Korea.  After you got snubbed from going on a high profile trip to Pakistan.  And after you got snubbed from going on a high profile trip to Russia.

The MSNBC take is as gentle in its raspberry as it can possibly be:

Clinton’s presence, so bold in her historic presidential candidacy against Barack Obama, has sometimes been hard to see in the months she’s served as the supposed face and voice of U.S. foreign policy.

The president’s ambitious travels have overshadowed her, heavyweight special envoys have been assigned to the world’s critical hotspots, Vice President Joe Biden has taken on assignments abroad — and then last week her husband succeeded in a North Korean mission to free two journalists even as she landed in Africa on a seven-nation trip.

“You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” she asked incredulously when the student raised a question about a multibillion-dollar Chinese loan offer to Congo.

You’ve got Richard Holbrooke running Afghanistan and Pakistan.  You’ve got George Mitchell running the Middle East.  You’ve got special envoys all over.  And you’ve got got Hillary Clinton in Congo.  The Secretary of Irrelevance.

Anybody but Hillary gets to go to anyplace that matters.  Hillary Rodham is relegated to traveling around to exotic and virtually irrelevant countries so she can bite the heads off of students who ask her stupid questions (it turned out that the translator was actually the one who asked the stupid question).

You’ve really got to hand it to Barack Obama.  It takes a REAL PRO to completely marginalize a Secretary of State, given the critical historic importance of the position (does anybody seriously see Henry Kissinger indignantly reminding the world that HE is Secretary of State while on an official visit to a flyover country?).

Poor Hillary.  The Community Organizer-in-Chief “organized” her community so that his primary opponent didn’t amount to a hill of used coffee grounds.  You can pretty much guess that that was not what she singed up for when she took the once-high profile job.  It’s the SECOND time Hillary Clinton fell victim to “change you can believe in.”

I’m just waiting to hear what Hillary’s reaction will be when she finds out that her official duties as the exalted Secretary of State include cleaning up after the Obama dog’s Bo (“You don’t think that a poop on the White House carpeting isn’t a crisis that needs to be resolved, Secretary Clinton?”).

This kind of thing is funny; at least unless we have a real crisis and Obama officials are more involved with scrambling for pecking order than they are in resolving the crisis.

U.S. Vs. North Korea: Who’s Winning The War Of Pissy Rhetoric?

July 23, 2009

As we know, liberals and leftists are incredibly sophisticated people.  Foreign policy, being a grown-up’s game, should be reserved for wise, mature, intellectuals who understand the intricacies of diplomacy.

At least until they start sticking their tongues out at one another.

Hillary Clinton is “engaging in a substantive foreign policy discussion” with the People’s Republic of Korea:

A 2007 six-party agreement in which North Korea began dismantling its nuclear complex at Yongbyon in return for fuel oil deliveries broke down in April this year, when North Korea threw out UN inspectors and restarted its weapons programme. It has since raised tensions by conducting an apparent nuclear test (some experts say it could have been a hoax using huge quantities of high explosive) and a series of missile tests.

In an interview on Monday, Clinton said the US should not over-react to North Korean provocation. She told ABC television: “Maybe it’s the mother in me, the experience I’ve had with small children and teenagers and people who are demanding attention: Don’t give it to them.”

Pyongyang’s reaction took three days to come, but the delay did not lessen its evident fury.

“We cannot but regard Mrs Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community,” a foreign ministry statement said. “Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes a pensioner going shopping.”

Yes, this certainly might seem childish.  But only if you are a Republican or a conservative who simply lacks the profound erudite sophistication necessary for the intricacies of diplomatic negotiation.

The funniest or most frightening thing (depending on your point of view) is that one could actually imagine World War III starting this way.