Bloodthirsty Liberal

Because with the election of Barack Hussein Obama, everyone will see us differently:

Since 2001, there have been 28 failed terrorist attacks against the United States. That averages out to about three foiled attempts per year. That was until this year. This year there were six failed attempts that make 2009 a banner year — the most in one year.

The fact that six attacks were foiled is cold comfort. In stopping #28, America just got lucky. Despite the warning signs, authorities did nothing to impede Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s travel. The plan of attack on the Detroit-bound plane didn’t work and the passengers and crew stopped the assailant.

Additionally, in 2009, not every terrorist attack was stopped. In November, Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down a dozen of his fellow soldier and shot-up a score more — despite the fact that there were red flags galore that he was some one to worry about. Others were recruited here to attack over there including five young men from northern Virginia who shipped-off to Pakistan; youth from Minneapolis enticed to fight Al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate; and David Coleman Headley, who allegedly helped plan the Mumbai attacks and other potential strikes.

In short, the system has failed a number of times in 2009. To make matters worse, Washington hasn’t shown that it cares very much. It doesn’t like to call the war a war. It doesn’t seem to care that some Patriot Act authorities will expire in 60 days. It would rather the Department of Homeland Security push for a mass amnesty bill than fight terrorists and try control the border.

But wait! To every bit of incompetence and treason this administration voids upon us every day, they have an answer:

This year Republicans have spent every day waging the same all-out war on the middle class that they started at the very hour that George W. Bush came into office.

They see 2010 as their chance to go back in time. And with the final FEC deadline of 2009 expiring at the exact same time that the ball drops in Times Square, the only thing stopping them is you.

…

The Republicans smell their chance in the New Year to bring back all the failed policies of the last eight. With the final FEC deadline of 2009 fast approaching, the power to stop them is in your hands.

Thanks,

Paul Begala

You’re welcome, Paul. Now go %&#@ yourself.

To listen to this dingbat, you’d think Bush was Harold Stassen or the blessed FDR himself. Bush hasn’t been on the ballot since 2004, but these cowards resurrect his ghost every election cycle.

The Nose on Your Face outdoes itself:

The recent news that President Barack Obama had asked New York Governor David Paterson to withdraw from the gubernatorial race raised many issues about race across the political spectrum.

TNOYF was able to secure a transcript of the call that Obama made, and we present it here in its entirety.

Well, if I’m not black, what am I?

Norwegian.

Norwegian!?!

Your real name is Gunnar Olaf Paterson.

Sounds like that notorious stifling of dissent from the Bush era (which I never detected among all that, you know, dissent) has finally struck a victim:

An aide to Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has resigned after reportedly posting comments on her Facebook account defending racial profiling in the recent arrest of a Harvard professor and calling President Obama “O-dumb-a.”

Lee Landor, who had been Stringer’s deputy press secretary since May, posted a series of comments on her Facebook page over the weekend criticizing Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the president, the weekly newspaper City Hall News reported on its Web site today.

…

Images of the Facebook posts — which were captured by City Hall News before the page was taken down — showed that Landor blasted the president for how he handled the situation last week.

“O-dumb-a, the situation got ‘out of hand’ because Gates is a racist, not because the officer was DOING HIS JOB,” she wrote.

…

In another post, Landor wrote that racial profiling “does exist, but for good reason.”

“Take a look at this country’s jails: who makes up the majority of inmates? Exactly,” she added.

In yet another post, Landor wrote, “You know what, I am really getting SICK of hearing about how white people are evil racists… I get it — white men have dominated for hundreds of years and there’s a lot of anger there. But HOW MUCH MORE can the white people people do to correct past injustices of their ancestors?”

Gee, sorry you don’t like what she had to say, but you did want a conversation.

The only point even remotely controversial is the one defending racial profiling. And those attacking her for that should answer her point. You won’t hear Jesse Jackson’s voice among the chorus of detractors, of course—he crossed the street when he saw the gang of black guys approaching him.

This is probably overkill, but every which way you look at him, Arlen Specter is full of s**t.

We’ve already recalled that he was so offended when Jim Jeffords forsook the Republican Party to vote with the Democrats that Specter announced he would introduce legislation to prohibit such an act of political betrayal.

We also noted that he said two seemingly contradictory things in the same breath: one, that the Republican Party had gone over to the dark side; two, that his decision was all about political preservation. I suppose I can see the consistency of that argument if he means that the Republican electorate (i.e. citizens, voters, taxpayers, etc.) had sworn allegiance to Satan and all his works.

But let’s look at that, shall we? Evidently, no one hates Pennsylvanians more than their elected officials (see Jack Murtha, who makes Specter sound tame), unless it’s President Obama (thanks to reader RB for reminding us that the “bitter clingers” were Keystoners). And maybe they deserve that contempt. How ’bout it, reader Barb? Are you a bunch of Nazis and Klansmen out there? You can level with us.

But Republicans in general? Didn’t they just nominate the least Republican candidate among their number to run for president? And hadn’t he spent his career so ignoring, insulting, and otherwise infuriating conservatives that he earned the nickname Maverick? That doesn’t sound so terrifying.

Oh, and the presidential election before Republicans actually managed to win. And the one before that. That doesn’t sound so isolated.

Also, haven’t more Republicans in the Senate crossed party lines to vote for Obama’s reckless initiatives than Democrats have voted the other way? In other words, which party is monolithic and demands suzerainty? Certainly, the media take it as given: they’ve declared President Obama a dictator (ever so benevolent, they would hasten to assure us). His filibuster-proof party majority in the Senate assures him absolute power, as if not a single Democrat would dare cross him or think an independent thought—which, admittedly, is probably true.

So, it would appear that Sen. Specter is indeed so full of s**t his eyes are brown. He liked to play maverick himself, and the voters in his party have finally had enough. Most men of principle would accept the consequences of their actions—no, all men of principle would.

Arlen Specter is a man of no principle. Hence President Obama’s warm remarks:

I’m thrilled to have Arlen in the Democratic caucus. I have told him that he will have my full support in the Democratic primary.

…

Today I have the honor of standing next to the newest Democrat from the state of Pennsylvania. I know the decision Senator Specter made yesterday wasn’t easy. It required long and careful consideration, and it required courage.

That’s the last trait you could ascribe to Sen. Specter—which is why this repellant, dishonest president chose it.

I’m back (how long do you think it takes to say “the creep should fry”?), and I’m PO’d:

All criminal charges against former Senator Ted Stevens will be dropped later today, the Department of Justice has announced. Attorney General Eric Holder said that he decided to drop the case because of the severe misconduct committed by Justice Department prosecutors–the only real instance of potentially politically-motivated misconduct in the Bush Justice Department that has come to light–which caused the trial judge to hold prosecutors in contempt of court. Holder was reportedly concerned about “more hearings that might embarrass the department.” If I were Stevens, I would demand hearings to try to determine whether the rogue prosecutors were politically motivated.

…

The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever.

The Democrats needed Stevens’s seat to get their filibuster-proof majority.

They got it.

The ends justify the means.

I frankly don’t know the case against Stevens—and find it confusing that a Democratic Justice Department caved on charges initially brought by a Republican Justice Department—but what conclusion can we draw other than that the case was politically motivated?

It tainted him, that’s for sure, but I think some stink also stuck to Governor Sarah Palin. She made her bones standing up to the corruptocracy among Alaska Republicans, and Stevens served as a reminder of the culture up there.

Or did he? In any case, he served his purpose, and has been discarded.

PS: Michelle’s far different take.

H-H-How come President Obama told us that th-there was no time to waste in passing the screw-you-louse bill—not even the 48 hours he and others promised to read its thousand pages (almost a billion dollars a page)—b-b-but the PMiC (Preening Metrosexual in Chief) can wait almost twice that long for the appropriate photo op to sign the d-damn thing?

Capping the biggest victory of his month-old administration, Obama will sign the economic legislation Tuesday in Denver.

The setting, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, is meant to underscore the investments the new law will make in “green” energy-related jobs. It also allows Obama to get away from Washington, where the bill’s passage was a mostly partisan affair, and be among people who may benefit from the huge government intervention.

[This is a news article?]

How come Congress didn’t take those 84 hours (an hour for every ten pages) the President left the bill just to sit on his desk to debate, even read, what they were voting on?

How come we were on the verge of catastrophe Friday night, yet the PMiC got to take a victory lap with his legislative “victory” for the next three and a half days?

How come, teacher?

Once head over heels enamored of His Oneness, Newsweek is no longer feeling the love:

[…] Barack Obama was our new president. Great day in the morning; a new age in American politics is upon us.

Or is it?

…

Obama himself wasn’t short on promises. He promised to change the very game of politics. He would bring transparency to government, toss out the lobbyists, encourage bipartisanship, unite the country, making us one people again.

…

The first inkling of the disappointment with Barack Obama, as we know, came with his appointments. Two major ones—Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle—had to drop out for tax and more intricate delinquencies; Nancy Killefer, his chief performance officer, fell by the wayside for similar reasons. Timothy Geithner, nominated as secretary of the Treasury, was given a pass. But Obama’s lectures on the purity that he would bring to government were over. The high moral ground he had picked out for himself, he was finding, was swampier than he had supposed.

…

Obama’s promise of a new bipartisanship hit heavy water as soon as his stimulus-package debate was set adrift. For one thing, only the idea for a stimulus package—but not the package itself—ever felt as if it were really his. From the outset it was instead the work of that fun couple, maestros Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Frick and Frack of heavy federal spending. And those two are as interested in bipartisan participation as Lord Byron was in marriage counseling. When the going on the package got rough, Obama said, in effect: “Well, I won the damned election, so we’ll do things my way, though of course I still invite bipartisan participation.”

…

Victims of the general ineptitude that the Obama administration has so quickly shown are transparency in government and the new (we hardly knew ye) bipartisanship.

…

He needed to calm the country down, and show, in a measured but forceful way, that a strong hand was at the wheel.

This he has thus far failed abysmally to do.

That’s enough of that beatdown.

Time to make way for another one, also from a Newsweek columnist:

“If you delay acting on an economy of this severity, (it potentially) becomes much more difficult for us to get out of. We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s, where they … suffered what was called the ‘lost decade.’”

– President Barack Obama, Feb. 9

“The Japanese … had eight separate stimulus packages. … It was unprecedented. And it didn’t work.”

– Conservative TV talk show host Sean Hannity, Jan. 23

We argue by analogy. The president says that Japan’s history demonstrates the need for his “stimulus package.” To the contrary, claim Hannity and other conservatives, Japan shows that stimulus plans don’t work. Up to a point, they’re both right. But the possible parallels between Japan’s experience and our own are much broader and pose the question of whether we, too, might face a “lost decade.”

…

What happened in Japan does not doom Obama’s stimulus as futile. Sometimes, government should intervene to break the fall of a declining economy. Japan’s packages probably temporarily bolstered a faltering economy. In this sense, the president is correct. Unfortunately, his stimulus is weaker than advertised, because much of the effect occurs after 2009.

Still, the operative word is “temporarily.” Hannity is correct in that serial stimulus plans become self-defeating. The required debt is unsustainable. At some point, the economy must generate strong growth on its own. Japan’s hasn’t. Will ours?

Of course, this is just the opinion of a couple of columnists, not the editorial stance of the magazine as a whole, which remains smitten.

But if the glare from His Oneness’ halo is fading even a little bit, we may just be able to see the moth holes in his cloak.

I like to get in faces as much as the next rabble-rouser, but I think I’d find a different way to taunt one of the few Jewish senators—no matter how much he’s asking for it:

Last week, I noted Kentucky radio talk show host Leland Conway’s campaign to send Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer bags of pork rinds in response to his arrogant claim that Americans don’t care about the pork in the trillion-dollar-porkulus.

Guess what? Conway’s call produced a mountain — an estimated 1,500 pork rind bags that will be packed up and delivered to the Schmuckster’s office. Yes, they care.

With all due respect to Michelle Malkin and Kentucky talk radio, what did they expect to happen after the election? We put a “redistributive” president in the White House and handed the keys to the congressional washroom over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, for pete’s sake—we’re lucky they stopped at a trillion.

I’m mad and I’m upset, too, but the American people elected this college of clowns. And it looks like professional buffoon Al Franken (thanks Minnesota) is set to join the circus, too.

Schumer is arrogant, elitist, howlingly leftist—and wrong. But he’s also a senator. He’s already on board the Fairness Doctrine bandwagon, and this may just give it another shove. If someone had sent a ton of pork rinds to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (again, thanks!), we’d be able to hear the bellows of “racist!!!” from Chula Vista, California (Dianne Feinstein) to Presque Isle, Maine (Olympia Snowe).

What will be the Democrats’ comeuppance? Afghanistan is a leading contender, though that would mean the cost of more American lives—and unlike our leftist friends, we do not pray for military defeat to accomplish political gain. I think it will be inflation, perhaps even stagflation, that will remind Americans of just how awful Democratic policies are.

Again, that means a lot of pain for a lot of people—but it’s pain they chose.

The Man of the People seems to trust very few of them:

Not even a week has passed since he was sworn in, but already Obama is moving to create perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history – a sort of West Wing on steroids that places no less than a half-dozen of his top initiatives into the hands of advisers outside the Cabinet.

For all the talk of his “Team of Rivals” pick in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama last week handed the two hottest hotspots in American foreign policy to presidential envoys – one to former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, and the other to a man who knows his way around Foggy Bottom better than Clinton does, Richard Holbrooke.

“Czar” Carol Browner will head up Obama’s fight on global warming, where once his energy and environmental chiefs might have stepped in. Tom Daschle scored a ground floor office in the West Wing not by running Health and Human Services – but because of his role as Obama’s health-reform czar.

Pulling power close is something all recent presidents have done – and on the campaign trail, Obama spoke out against George W. Bush’s attempt to expand his executive authority.

But when it comes to building his own team, Obama is taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights, leaving little doubt who will set policy and guide the politics of the his newborn administration.

Sounds like too many czars, not enough peasants. Oh wait—that’s the rest of us!

I really have no problem with how the president organizes the executive branch. It’s his call. Just stop telling us what a grand and magnanimous man he is. He’s the czar of all the lushes.

The state that brought you Governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura and movie star Garrison “Don’t Call Me Gary” Keillor may not get the chance to present Senator Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken to the nation:

You would think people would learn. The recount in the contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a seat in the U.S. Senate isn’t just embarrassing. It is unconstitutional.

This is Florida 2000 all over again, but with colder weather. Like that fiasco, Minnesota’s muck of a process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the controlling Supreme Court decision is none other than Bush v. Gore.

…

Minnesota is Bush v. Gore reloaded. The details differ, but not in terms of arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, inconsistency in how local recounts were conducted and counted, and strange state court decisions.

Consider the inconsistencies: One county “found” 100 new votes for Mr. Franken, due to an asserted clerical error. Decision? Add them. Ramsey County (St. Paul) ended up with 177 more votes than were recorded election day. Decision? Count them. Hennepin County (Minneapolis, where I voted — once, to my knowledge) came up with 133 fewer votes than were recorded by the machines. Decision? Go with the machines’ tally. All told, the recount in 25 precincts ended up producing more votes than voters who signed in that day.

…

Thus, citizens’ right to vote — the right to vote! — was made subject to political parties’ gaming strategies. Insiders agree that Mr. Franken’s team played a far more savvy game than Mr. Coleman’s. The margin of Mr. Franken’s current lead is partly the product of a successful what’s-mine-is-mine-what’s-yours-is-vetoed strategy, and of the Coleman team’s failure to counter it.

…

And what if there is no reliable way to determine in a recount who won, consistent with Bush v. Gore’s requirements?

The Constitution’s answer is a do-over. The 17th Amendment provides: “When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

…

For now, the only thing certain is that the present “certified” result — which is that Mr. Franken won by 225 votes out of more than 2.9 million cast — is an obvious, embarrassing violation of the Constitution.

Hard to argue, but remember the time we live in. Obama’s nominees for Attorney General and Treasury Secretary would be disqualified in any other time (as would his chief of staff). Certainly a Democratic Congress would never confirm them if they were Republicans.

I wouldn’t bet against Senator Al if I were you. His call for the Al Franken Decade may finally have come to pass, thirty years later.