Archive for Barack Narcissus Obama

Flay of Fish

This is such a complete vivisection of President Obama’s shortcomings, I almost feel sorry for him.

Not even close, actually. Enjoy!

In case you’re wondering why I’m writing about this—well, I am too. A Malaysian jetliner has vanished into thin air, while Russia has completed its seizure of Crimea and may yet invade other parts of Ukraine. Serious stuff, you might say. But the big story of last week as far as the president is concerned is his appearance alongside the star of “The Hangover” movies, the guy who last year smoked a joint live on the Bill Maher show.

Incidentally, I quote these lines from the Us Weekly report of the Seacrest interview. Us magazine is where I go for my political news these days. The online article also had a link to a photo gallery of Mr. Obama hanging out with various celebrities, like Justin Bieber. “What’s up, my dude!” the Canadian teen star says to the president of the United States. “What’s up, Biebs!” the president of the United States answers back.

Just the other day, he was photographed standing by his Oval Office desk, casually dressed in jeans, speaking to Vladimir Putin on the phone. The president had been savaged by Sarah Palin “as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.”

Retorted Mr. Obama: “The truth is, generally I look very sharp in jeans.” The sole exception, he added, “was one episode like four years ago in which I was wearing some loose jeans, mainly because I was out on the pitcher’s mound and I didn’t want to feel confined while I was pitching.”

Even now the unanswered question about Mr. Obama’s personality is whether his insouciance is a mask for ideology, ignorance, or simple indifference. When the president goes before the cameras to announce tough sanctions, and the sanctions are not only not tough but laughably weak, what’s going through his head?

Should he be wearing loose jeans more often so he can feel less confined geopolitically?

Alternatively, the president might consider rearranging his work schedule. Last year came the news that Mr. Obama was unaware of the problems plaguing his health-care website until after its rollout and that he never once had a private meeting with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius between July 2010 and November 2013. How does something like that happen?

A cavalier foreign policy by an inattentive president that elicits the contempt of the people it intends to punish ultimately encourages their aggression as well.

The less obvious: We need a fat president. Or at least one who rarely thinks and never speaks about how he looks in jeans. And one who doesn’t spend his day testing his wits against a Hollywood stoner or bantering with Ryan Seacrest while a European ally is being pummeled by Russia. And one who would rather spend his time working than working out, even if it means putting on a few pounds. And one who can pitch from the mound and reach home plate. However confined.

Clap-clap-clap.

I’m giving this a standing ovation as I write.

Comments (1)

What if They Held a Campaign Appearance and Nobody Came?

Obama is dangerous to Democrat Senators and other living things:

Do you ever wonder, though, if this guy imagined even in his darkest moments in the Hopenchange-y summer of 2008 that he’d one day be so toxic to the other party that red-state Dems would duck him when he came to town? That’s par for the course for any president, but not every president is a would-be post-partisan messiah.

[T]here’s no reason to be grumpy about Hagan pulling the “Barack who?” routine at this point. Why hand the Americans for Prosperity ad team another soundbite to use against her just because she wouldn’t give them a photo op to use?

I have it on good authority that Sen. Kay Hagen actually scheduled elective root canal and gum grafting for yesterday rather than be seen with this dill weed. (And she’s already got dentures!) If she had another appendix, she would have had that taken out too.

Obama couldn’t be more toxic to Democrat candidates if he gulped a Polonium milkshake, wore a suit spun from the wool of an anthrax-infected sheep, and French-kissed Typhoid Mary. To Southern voters, he is the southern pole of a magnet, repelling anyone who approaches him.

And he is such a spoiled petulant brat that he can’t leave the snub untouched. He would rather take her down with him than act mature (act, I said) and let it lie. That’s another reason he can’t be ex-President: besides not wanting to leave his precious legacy in the hands others less virtuous than he. No one truly gets him but him.

Comments

How Do You Top the Death of Nelson Mandela?

Silly question.

That was but the warm-up for the main event:

RUSH: [Y]ou gotta hear the Drive-Bys. You just have to hear the audio, verbal orgasms here.

CHRIS CUOMO: Were walking around and talking to security officials.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Castro! He’s shaking hands with Raul Castro.

CHRIS CUOMO: As Christiane points out, President Obama just shook hands with Raul Castro from Cuba. What does that say as a gesture?

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: It says that this a moment of reconciliation for Mandela. And President Obama is doing the diplomatic thing. He’s not just going to walk by and ignore these people who are there. And they’re all in a line. He’s kissing now the U.N. Secretary General, President Zuma.

ROBYN CURNOW: This is a man, and it is so true, who brought people together in life and he continues to bring people together in death.

Rush didn’t see the big whoop in bringing two communists together.

But it has to be pointed out that Cuba is still holding Alan Gross in prison, after four years, despite his direct appeal to President Obama. (Fox Butterfield, is that you?) And it has to be said that Raul Castro did Fidel’s dirty work. I would hope there’s something newsworthy in Obama shaking his hand. I would hope that was not routine. (Note I don’t say seemly or moral, just newsworthy.)

But CNN wasn’t done—and neither was Rush:

Now, we go back to Christiane Amanpour. Some gospel singer was bringing down the House. That’s the next thing that happened here at the memorial. And while the gospel singer was bringing down the house, Christiane Amanpour comes back to describe the moment when Obama shook Raul Castro’s hand as joy and described the whole service as just a warm-up act for Obama. Listen.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: President Obama couldn’t be getting a better warm-up act.

CHRIS CUOMO: I know!

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Look at this! The whole crowd!

CHRIS CUOMO: American gospel singer Kirk Franklin, who just brought this stadium to its feet, the South African crowd dominantly was just going crazy to the –

ROBYN CURNOW: Wonderful.

CHRIS CUOMO: — stylings of Kirk Franklin.

ROBYN CURNOW: Just a sense like we’re in the middle of a pop concert, half a party, but it’s a funeral. It’s a memorial service.

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: This truly is what today’s about! This moment really captured the joy!

Mandela’s dead! All right! Woo-hoo! Way to warm up the crowd! Hey, Nellie, can I take a selfie with you?

But then, the Left is notorious for hijacking death rites.

Shameless, shameless people.

Comments (1)

Bobble Head

Can you spot the difference?

Right! One’s a degrading stereotype—and the other’s a plastic doll!

President Barack Obama used a seven-minute late-night TV speech to maximize the PR impact of his nuclear deal with Iran’s Islamist theocracy.

Throughout the speech, the president repeatedly swiveled his head as if he were addressing a large audience.

But there were only a few officials in the White House’s formal State Room as he read the speech from two teleprompters positioned to his left and right, according to the pool reporter.

“Good evening. Today, [swivel] the United States — together with our close [swivel] allies and partners — took an important [swivel] first step toward a comprehensive solution that addresses [swivel] our concerns with [swivel] the Islamic Republic of Iran’s [swivel] nuclear program,” he declared.

According to the pool report, “In the room as the president spoke: Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor for strategic Communications and speechwriting, and several NSC staff members.”

Sasha [swivel], Malia, [swivel], will you please pass [swivel] the mashed potatoes and [swivel] gravy [swivel] [swivel]? Gosh, it’s hardly like the namesake of ObamaCare to go for staged events, is it?

Comments (1)

Shooting the President

And I thought graven images of holy figures were prohibited:

New York Times photographer Doug Mills strode into Jay Carney’s office Oct. 29 with a pile of pictures taken exclusively by President Obama’s official photographer at events the White House press corps was forbidden to cover. “This one,” Mills said, sliding one picture after another off his stack and onto the press secretary’s desk. “This one, too – and this one and this one and … .”

The red-faced photographer, joined by colleagues on the White House Correspondents’ Association board, finished his 10-minute presentation with a flourish that made Carney, a former Moscow correspondent for Time, wince.

“You guys,” Mills said, “are just like Tass.”

Chief White House photographer Pete Souza gets exclusive access to Obama, often at the expense of photographers who don’t get paid to make the president look good. The picture on the left is taken by a news photographer while Souza hogs the center frame, where he holds up a camera to take the picture at right. White House photographers have had exclusive access for decades, but before social media their photos were not distributed widely. Many news organizations publish and broadcast the White House photos (often without realizing it), which is akin to distributing a White House press release disguised as a news story.

Untitled

Media photographers were able to take photos of Obama visiting Nelson Mandela’s former jail cell (see left). They were told his visit with Mandela’s family in the cell would be “private.” And yet photos of Obama and the family, taken by the government-funded White House photographer, were made public and went viral. This passes as “private” in the Obama White House.

Untitled

Hey, I thought the girls were off limits! What gives? It looks like Obama just grabbed Sasha for the photo-op. Dad, you’re stepping on my foot!

We noted this disturbing hagiographic tendency two years ago. Nice of the media to notice.

Speaking of holy figures:

Untitled

These two photos illustrate how a president committed to transparency has instead restricted access. At left is President Bush touring the crypt containing the birthplace of Jesus Christ. It was taken by an AP photographer. Obama barred photographers during his visit to the exact same spot, and released the exclusive image at right. It was taken by photographer paid by taxpayers to make flattering photos of the president.

I just threw up in my mouth.

Comments

The Absent-Minded Law Professor

As enjoyable as it is to watch President Obama twist and flop like a gaffed fish… it really is enjoyable! Where was I?

Oh yes, Syrians are dying.

There are reasons for going in—obviously—and reasons for staying the [bleep] out—obviously. And there are principled arguments, if not principled people, on both sides.

So, what would we do? We supported Bush in Iraq, so don’t we support Obama in Syria? Up to a point—which is to say not really.

I’ll switch to the singular pronoun here, as Aggie’s thinking is her own, and I wouldn’t burden her with what passes for my thinking. I supported removing Saddam, but not because of WMD, or least because of WMD. I had no personal knowledge of his possession of bio, chem, or nuclear weapons—though I knew he used to: it was accepted as fact by all parties. But I knew he had started wars or skirmishes with Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, as well as with ethnic minorities within his own borders. I knew he was in violation of countless UN resolutions regulating his behavior, and that the only entity capable of holding him to account was the US military. (The UN’s response was to pass another resolution.) It appeared to me that Saddam had bluffed the international community, and the IC blinked. They couldn’t even make eye contact.

As bad as Boy Assad is, he isn’t that bad. But what if he is? Isn’t the real argument whether the US has any national interest? We’ve stood by while scores of thousands have died; what’s raised our ire this time? The manner of the death of innocents? And if the act can be proved, and the blame placed, why is it so difficult—impossible!—to get anyone—other than France!—to go along with us?

Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to the manner of our response. President Obama seems to be proposing something more along the lines of Bill Clinton’s blasting of an aspirin factory in Sudan, rather than Bush’s accomplished mission of regime change. If that’s all Obama wants, fine, go ahead. He already kills people with abandon in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen (among other places, probably, if I thought about it). What’s the big deal if he blows up a Nyquil plant in Aleppo?

Which brings us back to Obama’s hopeless ineptitude. As Charles Krauthammer noted, this crew couldn’t organize a three-car funeral. The allegedly gassed bodies aren’t even cold, but the will of international bodies to bring them justice is glacially cold—and slow. I’d say this is due to Obama’s twin traits of narcissism and anti-Americanism. Our global rivals know he shares their contempt for American power; our global allies know he loves himself more than he could ever love them or our shared interests.

When we find ourselves in a ditch (Obama’s favorite metaphor), it’s never because we meant to drive into one. We made a series of mistakes. Our first mistake took place on November 4, 2008. We’ve been doubling down ever since.

Comments

Did He Have To?

You know President Obama (unfortunately): he just couldn’t help himself:

“His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time,” Obama told a crowd that gathered under gray skies and intermittent drizzle to attend the five-hour ceremony.

King, Obama said, “gave mighty voice to the quiet hopes of millions,” heralding leaders who braved intimidation and violence in their fight for equal rights.

“Because they kept marching, America changed. Because they marched, the civil rights law was passed. Because they marched, a voting rights law was signed,” Obama said. “Because they marched, city councils changed and state legislatures changed and Congress changed and, yes, eventually, the White House changed.”

Because it’s all… about… him.

And did it really take five hours, or did it just seem that way?

The speech starts off promising enough: “His words belong to the ages, possessing a power and prophecy unmatched in our time.” Not bad, and true.

But then he makes a rhetorical fumble. Why start off with the grandest statement—America had changed—and then bother with the trivialities? Who cares, really, about city councils? And to culminate with himself—not Congress, not the landmark laws, not the country,himself—displays a narcissism bordering on obscene.

And this part was particularly disappointing:

Some conservatives have criticized the 50th anniversary celebration as an exercise of liberal Democratic politics, though the organizers have said the agenda is nonpartisan.

Organized labor; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups; and opponents of “stand your ground” laws all see Wednesday’s event as an opportunity to get their messages out.

However, many Republicans have chosen to remain on the sidelines.

I’m sure it did become a political rally—Dr. King would have been a gay-marriage-supporting, single-payer-advocating, gun-control activist, who supported bombing Syria without delay.

But Republicans were instrumental in passing the civil rights bills—Republican senators and congressmen voted for them at a higher percentage than their segregationist Democrat colleagues. (Look it up—I’ve posted on this several times.) Eisenhower did as much or more to desegregate than Kennedy. I can understand not wanting to be associated with rank partisan hacks, but Martin Luther King is too important to this country to have his bones picked by those hyenas.

I wish one or both Bushes had attended and spoken. I wish David Eisenhower, a historian, had spoken. Carter, Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey—they all spoke. But the best conservatives got was this (and it was very good indeed):

Social activist Robert Woodson, who heads the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, said the African-American community faced a completely different set of issues in the 1960s. “Our problems today are not the Klan coming in, but it is, what are we doing to ourselves?”

Woodson added, “About 10 years ago, there was a Klan rally in downtown Washington, and The Washington Post asked an old black guy in (mostly black) Ward 8 — the highest crime area of the city — if he was going to join in the demonstration. He said, ‘Bring the Klan down here if they can get rid of these drug dealers.’ ”

Woodson, who is black and describes himself an independent, is highly critical of the current state of civil rights advocacy. He recently addressed a meeting of the Republican National Committee, echoing some of his concerns about the movement and the state of black leadership.

“I really think it has morphed into a race-grievance industry. I think they have descended from the moral high ground that they used to occupy. And that they have become an extension of the Democratic Party,” Woodson said.

Great. I mean it. But the Republican Party, political conservatives, can’t cede “the moral high ground” to the “race-grieving industry”. Dr. King dreamt of the day when a person would be judged not on the color of his skin, but the content of his character. That’s Conservatism 101. And a high-profile conservative Republican should have been there to pay honor to King’s legacy.

Comments

Another “Sensational Headline”

“Some Americans only see the Mexico depicted in sensational headlines.”
President Barack Obama, May 3, 2013

Authorities in Mexico City say they’ve rescued 46 women in a human trafficking bust.

The women rescued included 27 Mexicans and 19 foreigners, Mexico City prosecutors said in a statement.

Forty people were detained after a raid at the Cadillac table-dance club in the country’s capital over the weekend, prosecutors said. Fourteen of them face charges of human trafficking for sexual exploitation, the statement said.

In 2011, Mexico City’s human rights commission found there were “alarming” human trafficking figures in the sprawling metropolis.

While an estimated 10,000 women were victims of human trafficking in Mexico’s capital in 2010, there were only 40 investigations of the crime and three convictions in the city that year, according to a report from the organization.

Wherever Obama goes, he delivers a speech of his own image of the world, without regard to actuality. Pretty funny, in a sick sort of way, that the day after he pays tribute to African slaves on his current trip, we learn of sexual slavery in Mexico, site of his previous trip. Germans are wondering what his Brandenburg Gate speech was all about when he’s spying on them like back in the old Eric Honecker days.

A narcissistic personality disorder is never a pretty thing to see, except possibly to the narcissist.

Comments

He Made It!

Congratulations, Mr. President, we know how much this meant to you:

Berlin wasn’t reached in a day, sir. Just ask General Eisenhower. Like a salmon swimming upstream to spawn, you have doggedly pursued this photo op (to mix metaphors).

Maybe now you can move on in your life. At least to other photogenic sites!

Glad to see you’re not hung up on that graven image neurosis, sir.

PS:

Untitled 2

Okay, I’m done.

Comments (1)

He the People

Consider this a companion piece to the one below:

President Obama’s admirers—who include most of the press corps, the Nobel committee and President Obama—believe above all in the power of his oratory: A “major speech,” in Philadelphia, Tucson or Cairo, can always calm troubled political waters. Which makes the silence of this wordiest of Presidents all the more unusual and dangerous amid the political uproar over National Security Agency antiterror surveillance.

In the 11 days since the story broke, Mr. Obama has offered only one brief and elliptical defense of the NSA programs. “I welcome this debate,” he said, adding that “We’ll have a chance to talk further during the course of the next couple days.”

Mr. Obama went on to spend the next couple days avoiding the debate he said he welcomed. Between fund-raising appearances in Miami Beach and Santa Monica, he squeezed in an event welcoming the women’s professional basketball championship team to the White House, an Ed Markey for Senate rally in Boston, and a celebration for gay pride month. The core national-security obligations of the Presidency? Nada.

With Mr. Obama’s face on the surveillance milk carton, the case for data-mining and digital eavesdropping has fallen to NSA chief Keith Alexander and the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper continued his pattern of doing more harm than good with his line about answering congressional questions in “the most truthful or least most untruthful manner,” which helps to explain why people are skeptical of U.S. spooks.

If Mr. Obama wants to maintain public support for the U.S. antiterror architecture he inherited and has robustly used, he is going to have to publicly defend it in the context of American interests and values. Without such a defense, the political vacuum will be filled by speculation and demagoguery as it has been for nearly two weeks.

As a Senator, Mr. Obama might have joined the demagogues. Yet as President he has largely erred on the side of keeping the country safe, which confirms the truism that the world looks different from the Oval Office than from an Iowa fairground. He has bombed terrorists to death by the hundreds even as his rhetoric continues to suggest that he has saved the nation from George W. Bush’s antiterror tyranny. This contradiction between his talk and action is now undermining support for Mr. Obama’s powers.

All of this follows an unfortunate national-security pattern: Mr. Obama ramped up the Afghan campaign while undercutting the counter-insurgency strategy from the start, and he barely spoke of it again except to trumpet withdrawal. He threw in with the Europe-led Libya coalition at the last second, only to abdicate once Gadhafi fell and to the point that a U.S. Ambassador was murdered without consequence.

Last month he all but declared the war on terror wrapped up. And then last Thursday he left the explanation for his abrupt change of heart to (lightly) arm the Syrian rebels to his deputy national security adviser.

When the going gets tough, the tough go to Germany and give a speech (another one!) in front of the Brandenburg gate.

I don’t want to say that President Obama is a narcissist, but if he were any more in love with himself, he’d have to leave Michelle to be with his “soul mate”.

Comments

If at First You Don’t Succeed…

Drei, drei again:

Oops! Wrong president! How’d that get in there?

When U.S. President Barack Obama visits Germany on Tuesday and Wednesday, he’ll get the opportunity he was denied as a presidential candidate in 2008: a speech at Berlin’s most famous landmark, the Brandenburg Gate.

But the audience will have lost its euphoria for him. In Germany, which viewed him as the great hope of world politics five years ago, there is disappointment that the Obama administration hasn’t changed U.S. foreign and security policies as much as hoped.

Revelations about the scale of the U.S. National Security Agency’s Internet surveillance program Prism have caused much anger in Germany, where data privacy is seen as an important aspect of personal freedom—so much so that even Google Street View has raised hackles.

Although Mr. Obama remains personally popular in Germany, the exposure of Prism has compounded disillusionment here and elsewhere in Europe with his administration’s use of lethal drone attacks and its failure to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay as pledged. “Barack Obama has lost his mystique,” Germany’s mass-circulation tabloid Bild wrote last week. Under the headline “Yes We Scan,” Bild criticized the U.S. for “snooping on an unthinkable scale” on the Web.

Ha! Good one, Germany!

Wednesday’s speech will be a smaller affair. Mr. Obama will address several thousand invited guests, while the zone around the Brandenburg Gate will be shut down for the general public, with even residents barred from using their balconies and roof terraces.

Still, it will be nice to stand in front of real columns, not styrofoam columns. And to stand where JFK once stood.

D’oh! I meant President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, not John Forbes Kerry!

That’s more like it. (Is there anyone who hasn’t appeared at the Brandenburg Gate before Obama?) We know how much it means to President Obama to be seen in just the right places. The telepromter can be set up anywhere. But iconic images are harder to come by.

Patience, my good man.

Comments

More Headlines

“Some Americans only see the Mexico depicted in sensational headlines.”
President Barack Hussein Obama

And isn’t it just so unfair?

At least two guards have been killed and nine prisoners have escaped during a jailbreak in southern Mexico, officials say.

A prison warden and a prisoner were also injured when a group of men stormed the prison and opened fire.

The attack happened in the early hours of Sunday in the town of La Union, in the south-western state of Guerrero.

Correspondents say jailbreaks are common in Mexico’s overcrowded prisons, which house inmates from rival gangs.

Guerrero’s Public Security Secretariat said a “group of men armed with rifles and guns” stormed the building at 05:00 local time (10:00 GMT), killing the guards and freeing the inmates.

In a statement, it said that federal and state police were using helicopters to find the escaped prisoners.

It added that the whereabouts of the prison’s director, Manuel Chavarria, was unknown; local media say he fled the attack.

I don’t know how “common” they are. This one happened a whole six months ago:

At least 17 people have been killed during an attempted jailbreak in Mexico, officials say.

Eleven inmates and six guards died in a shootout in the city of Gomez Palacio as the prisoners tried to escape through tunnels.

Gang violence is an endemic problem in the Mexican penal system.

The incident happened a day after President Enrique Pena Nieto announced the creation of a national police force to help tackle crime and violence.

Of course, this one happened only three months before that:

More than 130 prisoners are on the run in Mexico after a mass breakout from a jail close to the US border.

The inmates escaped through a tunnel dug out from the prison’s carpentry workshop to a perimeter fence.

The prison director and two other employees are being held over the incident at the facility in Coahuila, the state’s attorney-general said.

A massive manhunt is under way, and the US authorities are on alert in case any escapees attempt to cross the border.

Wow, that’s pretty messed up. CNN provides this helpful summation:

In just the last few weeks there have been stories of 12 young people allegedly abducted in daylight from a Mexico City club; the death by beating of Malcolm X’s grandson, also in the capital; the kidnapping of a U.S. Marine reservist from his father’s ranch; the freeing of 165 people, including two pregnant women, who had been held prisoner; and the case of an Arizonan mom traveling on a bus who was arrested and jailed, accused of smuggling drugs.

That’s all before you look at the staggering toll of the years-long war between security forces and drug cartels — at least 60,000 people killed in drug-related violence from 2006 to 2012, according to Human Rights Watch. Other observers put the number even higher.

Outside of war zones, more Americans have been killed in Mexico in the last decade than in any other country outside the United States, and the number of U.S. deaths jumped from 35 in 2007 to 113 in 2011.

But those numbers do not lead to any simple conclusion.

No, of course not. They’re just “sensational headlines”.

Look, I have nothing against Mexico. It wouldn’t matter if I did; it’s not going anywhere. Just as long as it stays where it is—and its citizens stay where they are unless they immigrate here legally.

And I sure as hell don’t accept President Obama’s portrayal of happy people playing mariachi music and wearing peasant blouses while bearing fruit baskets on their heads. Why he felt the need to try to spin Mexico as something other than it is can only be answered by his narcissism. He is so entranced by his own words, he thinks he can will a peaceful, law-abiding state on a violent, lawless one. If only “sensational headlines” like these didn’t spoil his view.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »