Archive for Liberal Ignorance

Dingbats for Dhimmi

I wasn’t sure there was more to say about the shameful, degrading climbdown by Brandeis University over their invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali—but that if there was, Phyllis Chesler would be the one to say it:

The Brandeis professors who demanded that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be “immediately” dis-invited wrote that “we are filled with shame at the suggestion that (Hirsi Ali’s) above-quoted sentiments express Brandeis’s values.”

Eight[y] seven professors or 29% of the Brandeis faculty signed this letter. These professors teach Physics, Anthropology, Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, English, Economics, Music, Film, Computer Science, Math, Sociology, Education—and Women and Gender Studies. Four percent of the signatories teach Anthropology, 6% teach Near Eastern and Jewish Studies, 9% teach Physics—and 21% teach Women and Gender Studies.

In my 2005 book, The Death of Feminism, this is precisely what I was talking about, namely, the feminist departure from universal human rights, a greater focus on anti-racism than on anti-sexism, and a deadly multi-cultural relativism. These Brandeis feminists, both male and female, are defending Islamist supremacism, (which is not a race), and attacking an African Somali women, who happens to be a feminist hero.

Feminists have called Hirsi Ali an “Islamophobe” and a “racist” many times for defending Western values such as women’s rights, gay rights, human rights, freedom of religion, the importance of intellectual diversity, etc.

The 1960s-early 1970s feminism I once championed — and still do — was first taken over by Marxists and ideologically “Stalinized.” It was then conquered again by Islamists and ideologically “Palestinianized.”

Feminists became multi-cultural relativists and as such, refused to criticize other cultures, including misogyny within those other cultures.

To be fair to the libbers, the same psychosis came to afflict many leftists. Liberal Jews have been similarly “Stalinized” and “Palestinianized”. Just as Stalin (and, later, the Palestinians) intended (Lenin’s “useful idiots”). Stalin and the Arabs were so successful, feminists at Brandeis turned on a feminist victim of Islamofascism, Jews have turned on Israeli victims of Islamic terrorism, and the Obama Left has turned on the nation that is greatest defender of liberty in the world.

Heckuva job, Uncle Joe!

Comments

Liberal Lion or Homicidal Hyena?

I have a few words in response to all those who memorialize LBJ as a giant of progressivism:

Hey, hey, LBJ!
How many kids did you kill today?

This past week, on the golden anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, four of LBJ’s successors went to his library in Texas to praise his character and his deeds. George W. Bush lauded him for turning “a nation’s grief to a great national purpose.” Jimmy Carter chided his fellow Democrats for not emulating Johnson’s determination to fight for racial equality. Barack Obama remarked that LBJ’s “hunger” for power “was harnessed and redeemed by a deeper understanding of the human condition, by a sympathy for the underdog, for the downtrodden, for the outcast.” Bill Clinton reflected that Johnson “saw limitless possibilities in the lives of other poor people like him who just happened to have a different color skin.”

Some liberal journalists echoed the chief executives, past and present. LBJ, wrote my friend E.J. Dionne, presided over “a consensual period when a large and confident majority believed that national action could expand opportunities and alleviate needless suffering. The earthily practical Johnson showed that finding realistic ways of creating a better world is what Americans are supposed to do.”

They left out just one small, eensy-weensy thing:

Not a word about those countless people in Southeast Asia whose lives reached their unnatural limits when they encountered an American infantryman with an M-16 or a bomb dropped from a B-52.

From 1964 to 1968, close to 34,000 Americans died in South Vietnam. We will never know how many Vietnamese women, men, and children perished during those years, but the total, according to most estimates, was at least one million. Among the dead were tens of thousands of civilians—blown apart by explosives dropped from planes, burned to death by napalm, or gunned down by U.S. troops whose commanders told them that, in a village considered loyal to the Vietcong, they should “kill anything that we see and anything that moved.” Their commander-in-chief was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

We conservatives have looked back at the Vietnam War as perhaps a war worth fighting—better, a war worth winning—given the decades of reprisals, repression, boat people, and bone crushing poverty the Vietnamese have suffered under communism.

But that doesn’t fill a liberal’s belly. Neither does it warm their little hearts that Republicans supported Johnson’s signature civil rights agenda more than Democrats did.

But both sets of facts ought to be part of the discussion.

Comments

The Problem With Leftist Jews In America

Brandeis reneges on promised honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali

This is shameful.

After growing criticism, Brandeis University cancelled its plan to present an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fierce critic of Islam, reported The New York Times.

Hirsi Ali, also a women’s rights activist, has called the religion “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death” in the past.

“We cannot overlook that certain of her past statements are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values,” the university said in a statement.

The decision came eight days after the university had announced that Hirsi Ali would be honored at its commencement ceremony on May 18.

Unlike inviting a speaker with provocative views to lecture for the sake of diversity, awarding an honorary degree implies endorsement of the recipients views and work.

Criticism of the plan to honor Hirsi Ali grew among a handful of bloggers, and was then picked up by a Brandeis student who started an online petition on Change.org. The petition garnered thousands of signatures, reported the Times.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations then encouraged its members to complain to the school, and sent a letter to the university president Frederick Lawrence, calling Hirsi Ali a “notorious Islamophobe.”

In its statement Brandeis apologized for any offense caused, saying they “were not aware of” her statements on Islam.

Hirsi Ali is a Somali native who has spoken out against the practice of female genital mutilation – a procedure she underwent as a child – and about an arranged marriage she was almost forced into by her family.

She later received political asylum in the Netherlands and was elected to the Dutch Parliament. She is currently a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote her autobiography, Infidel, in which she describes growing up in Somalia and later in Mecca, the genital mutilation she suffered as a little girl at the hands of her grandmother, the life she lead as a refugee in Europe and her eventual ascension to the level of Parliament in The Netherlands. She worked on the movie, Submission, with Theo Van Gogh, you remember, the one that got him butchered in broad daylight on the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic lunatic. He was nearly decapitated. After that, she underwent 24 hour security. But her lovely Dutch neighbors complained about the disruption the security forces were causing, and the Dutch government responded by revoking her citizenship. I kid you not.

This is her latest venture:

Brandeis, I have never been so disappointed in you.

- Aggie

Comments

What is “Social Justice”?

I’ve come to be very suspicious of the phrase, given those who are so fond of using it, but what does it mean?

Wikipedia?

Social justice is the ability people have to realize their potential in the society where they live.

Realize their potential—you mean like charter schools, where the pupil, not the teacher, and certainly not the teachers union, is paramount?

Ha-ha, very funny:

Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis wants schools to teach social justice, not “consumerism,” she said in a video.

“You want to talk about organizing? You want to talk about social justice?” the Chicago union leader asked. “People always talk about how that there’s no political and values in math, that you can teach math without a place for social justice.”

“Johnny has five pencils and if he spent two cents for the red pencils and eight cents for the green pencils, and he has 47 cents, how many pencils can he buy? We’ve all seen that, right?” Lewis said. ”That’s a very political statement, because it’s all about consumerism — it’s about buying stuff, right?”

Instead, Lewis prefers the approach of one progressive teacher who uses union-approved rhetoric in math problems, instead of the damaging consumerism of two cent pencils.

“Bob Peterson tells them about Jose working in a factory making piecemeal clothes. He uses the same numbers and gets the same answer,” Lewis explained. “Math is political, too.”

Told you it was funny. Apparently being a teacher is political, as well:

Lewis is best known for leading a strike within the ailing Chicago Public Schools system. Lewis’ strike caught national attention, winning 17.6 percent pay increases for Chicago teachers, who then earned on average $71,000-$76,000 per year.

Lewis is currently focusing on fighting potential pension cuts to city teachers. Illinois is facing at least $100 billion in unfunded pension liabilities for public workers.

Don’t give up a penny, Karen. Green pencils don’t grow on trees.

I thought liberals celebrated “consumerism”. That’s what Pelosi and Obama tell us when they celebrate welfare and unemployment benefits. “Folks” have the money to buy pencils, “piecemeal clothing” (thongs?), Big Macs, whatever, thereby employing stationers, seamstresses, and fry cooks—at least until a hike in the minimum wage forces employers to cut back.

As a conservative, I not only approve of but celebrate the opportunity for people to “realize their potential”. But what that has to do with this fat hackette’s (sorry, not really, for the ad hominem attack) nonsense escapes me. The very reason Jose is working in a sweatshop is that he was failed by the Chicago schools. They didn’t teach him English or good communication skills, didn’t teach him that red pencils are just as good as green, and cheaper, didn’t teach him that capitalism is the best system for people to “realize their potential”—but you have to have something to offer, a trade, skill, talent, whatever to sell in the marketplace. Those who do indeed do “realize their potential” and found businesses and whole industries. Those who don’t tend to work at the lower end of those businesses and industries, until Democrat policies ruin the economy, and they get laid off.

In this sense, “social justice” would seem to mean a vicious cycle of liberal nonsense. Which is what I thought.

Comments (2)

Border Wars

The theme of Michael Chrichton’s Jurassic Park is that chaos rules the universe. You can have the best minds apply themselves to control a complex system, without budgetary or intellectual limitation; yet their “perfect” offspring will be a perfect monster.

That’s why I love (in a perverse sense) ObamaCare. It’s a perfect monster.

In ways no one could have imagined:

The Obama administration’s hopes that Massachusetts would serve as a model for New England states enrolling residents in health insurance has collapsed in a bitter regional feud over tens of millions of dollars, a victim of the botched rollout of the state’s online insurance portal.

Connecticut health care officials are now mounting a campaign to collect a portion of a $45 million federal innovation grant that was awarded to Massachusetts to build a state-of-the-art consumer platform for President Obama’s insurance program. The original idea was that the technical underpinnings of Massachusetts’ computer system could be shared with other New England states.

Massachusetts has failed to produce a successful computer model to share, and in the meantime Connecticut’s insurance marketplace, built by Deloitte LLP, is working so well that the state is now offering its computer system as a model for other struggling states.

Counihan said five states have expressed interest in piggybacking off Connecticut’s insurance marketplace, but not Massachusetts.

“Some states were trying to build a Maserati. We built a Ford Focus,’’ Counihan said. “It might not be as glamorous but it runs. It can get you to the store.”

The Massachusetts website was supposed to tell consumers if they qualify for a subsidized plan, calculate the cost, and help them to compare plans and enroll. But the site has not worked properly since it was launched in October, leading the state to encourage people to fill out paper applications instead.

This would be the time to remind you that under RomneyCare we did have a functioning website. The system went into the crapper only when ObamaCare required us to junk the old one—the Ford Focus, if you will—for the Maserati.

I love to watch nature in action. Whether it’s flower petals opening in sunlight or tracking the moons of Jupiter through a small telescope. The consequences of ObamaCare—so predictable in the general, so astonishing in the particular—delight me (in a perverse sense). Not least the bitter battle between Blue States over greenbacks.

If we were rational creatures, we would learn from this foolhardy fiasco. But we’re not. That’s why there was a sequel to Jurassic Park.

Comments

Culture Wars Again

When I read Glenn Beck said this:

“I said when I left Fox that this half of my career is going to be shaped more by Walt Disney than anything else,” he says.

His interest in Disney is symbolic of the shift in his attention and efforts toward culture and away from politics. He had a realization: “Culture is the lead. That’s the dog. The news is the tail.”

He pulls out a piece of early publicity on Disneyland, points to a paragraph, and reads aloud. “Disneyland will be based upon and dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America and it will be uniquely equipped to dramatize these dreams and facts and send them forth as a source of courage and inspiration to all the world.” Beck, known to burst into tears at a moment’s notice, looks like he might do so right now. “That’s what we’re gonna do,” he declares. “That’s how I intend on impacting culture. To do that.”

And then Mark Steyn wrote this:

You can’t have conservative government in a liberal culture, and that’s the position the Republican party is in. After the last election, I said that the billion dollars spent by the Romney campaign on robocalls and TV ads and whatnot had been entirely wasted, and the Electoral College breakdown would have been pretty much the same if they’d just tossed the dough into the Potomac and let it float out to sea. But imagine the use all that money and time could have been put to out there in the wider world. Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November — and then are surprised that it doesn’t make much difference. Culture trumps politics — which is why, once the question’s been settled culturally, conservatives are reduced to playing catch-up, twisting themselves into pretzels to explain (including in the pages of this magazine) why gay marriage is really conservative after all, or why 30 million unskilled immigrants with a majority of births out of wedlock are “natural allies” of the Republican party.

I am compelled to pause and think.

I don’t necessarily buy into everything Steyn says—I think gay marriage can be conservative, for example, in that two adults of the same sex committing to each other before God and man, often to raise children, fits the conservative model of the family more than a single woman who tries to go it alone (or aborts her unborn child). Conservatism can change with the times, and the times are significantly less hostile to gay people, and even gay marriage, than just a few years ago.

But I do buy the larger part. How can the Right win elections (except as a reaction to failures on the Left—see 2010 and 2014, I hope) when its vision of a healthy society is so at odds with what popular culture is selling? Cutting the budget may be fiscally prudent (necessary, even), but what about school breakfasts? We no longer expect parents in some districts to give breakfast to their kids (lunch was lost long ago), so are they supposed to go to school hungry? What about unemployment insurance? Even liberal economists (even Paul Krugman!) acknowledge that paying people not to work discourages them from working. But do you want them to starve? Black women may be slaughtering their unborn children at genocidal rates (in the case of “Dr.” Keith Gosnell, literal slaughtering), but do you expect them to have babies they can’t care for?

The culture weighs the pros and cons and makes its decisions. We live in a culture that prefers dead black babies to ones born to unfit mothers; that would rather not insist people work even when they can; that would rather schools play mommy and daddy, rather than, you know, mommy and daddy. Like a parallel universe, it’s hard to picture the world any different.

Yet this is at odds with one of Rush’s observations: that Obama remains more popular than any of his policies. He preaches “immigration reform” (amnesty) when few people care, and most of those who do oppose it. He wants to elevate “climate change” from the last place finish it ranks in polls of national concerns. He won’t get off the pot on the Keystone pipeline, when most people see the benefit. And he force-fed us ObamaCare. At least on some political issues, Obama, not conservatives, is at odds with the culture. Once Obama is gone, things may look more balanced (if it’s not too late).

I am more drawn to the Tea Party end of the Republican Party than its mainstream—give me more Ted Cruz, less John Boehner. Not because I believe everything Cruz believes, but because he believes in something. Whatever the Left believes in is diseased and corrupt. That has to made manifest to a nation of “low information voters”.

Comments

It’s a Long Story

I picked up my Sunday Boston Glob from my front walk this morning (looking like Tony Soprano in my bathrobe and slippers), and this was the front-page story:

She only wanted to change the world

Erin Willinger wasn’t going to be held back by her illness, not by anything. With much to fear, she was fearless. And then she was gone.

Untitled

Erin Willinger left Newton to search the world for purpose. Last July, she settled in Agra, India, marrying a local taxi driver. In February, he killed her and committed suicide.

Something’s wrong here. How does a local girl from Newton North marry an Indian taxi driver, only to die at his hands in a murder-suicide?

It gets wronger:

At Newton North High School, teachers imbued her with a healthy outrage at the world’s shortcomings. She leapt at a chance to travel to Cuba in her senior year, and was desperate to see more of this aching planet.

“I hope you realize, I’m never going to live here again,” she told her father just before she left for Vassar College.

“Are you going to put that in writing?” joked Andrew, who had been raising Erin on his own after he and her mother separated a few years before.

Despite her vow, Erin did come back for a time, after being diagnosed with bipolar disorder in her junior year at Vassar. She worried that her illness would define her, often telling her father she didn’t want to be known as “bipolar girl.” After her treatment, she went back to college — this time to Columbia — then on a journey that her father said was occasionally interrupted by her condition, rather than defined by it.

“I think she was doing what she was meant to do,” Andrew said.

I’m sorry, but that’s crap. I can’t possibly judge a man who’s lost his daughter—I’m only writing about this because I feel something terribly wrong has happened—but people with bipolar disorder are defined by their condition. It’s not a bad thing, but it’s a real thing.

There are other red flags, as well. What’s healthy at the outrage her teachers propagandized about the world’s shortcomings? If you want to help the people of Cuba, you go to Miami and work with the refugees from Castro’s gulag, not to Castro’s gulag itself.

Anyway, she saw plenty more of this “aching planet”:

Fluent in Spanish and French, Erin did an internship in Helsinki, working on human rights. After college, she visited the Czech Republic, Russia, Bolivia, Peru, Vietnam, Thailand, and other places. She traveled to rural Mali with an African dance class she’d joined in Cambridge. In e-mails, she said felt most comfortable in less developed countries, where there was little structure and no stigma about someone like her, where she felt no pressure to conform in order to do meaningful work.

She searched for purpose — in yoga, in Catholicism, and, on an extended stay in Israel, in Judaism. Eventually, she found her faith not in religion, but in connecting with people who needed help.

May I observe that I feel the presence of her bipolarity in this resume of her life and experiences? No proof, just a hunch.

Last July, just after her 30th birthday, she settled in Agra. Red-haired, with alabaster skin, she stood out there despite her jewel-toned saris. After her traveling companions moved on, she settled in with a local family, eventually beginning a relationship with their taxi driver son, Bunty Sharma. Sharma had a son of 6 or 7 and Erin felt sweetly and irrationally responsible for the child, and desperate for the kind of acceptance her illness had denied her elsewhere. So she married Sharma, over her father’s objections.

Erin Willinger was diagnosed with bipolar disorder while in college and she worried her condition would define her.

“I just thought it was crazy,” Andrew said. “And soon enough she thought it was crazy, too.” Shortly after they were married, Sharma revealed to Erin that he had served time in prison for killing someone. She left him, and began working on a divorce.

“I told her, ‘Don’t go a little way, leave town,’?” Andrew said. “And she just didn’t want to leave the work she had started. She was kind of stubborn.”

Erin saw the masses of tourists passing through Agra to see the Taj Mahal each day, and lamented the fact that the city’s poorest residents never benefited from them. If the city was more inviting, visitors would want to stroll around and spend their money beyond the monument’s walls, she figured. And so she began a movement to clean up the streets, modeled on a program she’d started in Israel. Andrew worried about Sharma, but Erin convinced him her husband was no threat.

It’s a lovely idea, but how can I focus on it when alarm bells are going off in my head? Moving in with a local family and marrying their taxi driving son? Playing step-mom to his boy? “Working on a divorce” after her “husband” admits to being a murderer, rather than getting the hell out of Dodge? Crazy doesn’t even begin to cover it.

“In the back of my mind I was always worried I was going to get a call in the middle of the night from the embassy,” he said. “I told her all the time she should come home and get a real job and get a normal life and she would repeatedly tell me, ‘That’s not very helpful, dad; I’m not going to do that.’?”

It is the loving burden of all parents — to raise kids and send them off into the world, hoping for the best, and dreading the worst. Most of the time, the dread is unfounded, merely an instrument of torture on sleepless nights. But for Andrew, those calls did come over the years, usually from somebody letting him know that Erin had had an episode, and needed treatment.

When the US embassy called at 6 a.m. on Feb. 21, the day after Erin’s triumphant press conference, he assumed she’d been hospitalized again.

No. Erin was dead. Sharma had stabbed her in his taxi and dumped her body by the side of a road. Then he went back to his apartment and blew up a gas canister, killing himself.

I’ll stop here, as we needn’t wallow in the understandable yet incomprehensible grief her father felt. There’s no one to blame, yet everyone’s to blame. Erin herself, who didn’t give her condition the respect it demanded—didn’t see her life and her choices as defined by her condition. Her father, who let her believe she could do what she was doing and not come to such an end. (To be fair to him, he sounds like he did do everything he could do, short of kidnapping his 30-year-old daughter.) Her “teachers” who imbued the outrage that led to so many of her bad decisions.

But most of all to the Boston Gob, and Yvonne Abraham, the author, for implying sense to senselessness. A girl whose bipolarity was as much a part of her as her red hair and “alabaster” skin, made a series of bad choices, most prompted by that condition. And she was murdered for it.

The Indian papers cast the murder as the story of a Bollywood-style romance gone wrong: A beautiful, educated American woman falls in love with an illiterate Indian taxi driver and their marriage goes sour, their two lives extinguished in a crime of passion.

That simplistic story line eats at Andrew. His daughter’s death was uglier than that, her life more beautiful. He wants people to know Erin stayed in India for a love far bigger than some treacly romance.

She stayed because she was fearless. And because she wanted to fix the world.

Did she fall in love? Did she want to fix the world? Or was she just off her meds? I’m sorry, but a “beautiful, educated American woman” from Newton North high school doesn’t get stabbed to death in her illiterate “husband’s” taxi and dumped by the side of the road in rural India unless something’s gone terribly, terribly wrong. Either someone should have saved her, or she was going to die—that’s the perverse moral of this story.

Comments

Our Man in Kiev

Obama may look out of his depth and bested by Putin at every turn.

But he has a long history with Ukraine:

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.

In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.

The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.

After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.

Untitled

Many of the artillery shells shown in photographs from Donetsk, multiple weapons experts told MailOnline, would be the same types of ammunition required to repel advancing Russian divisions as they advanced to the west, had they not been destroyed.

Imagine Obama seeking to cut a nation’s military to a level at which it couldn’t defend itself. It can’t happen here!

‘Vast stocks of conventional munitions and military supplies have accumulated in Ukraine,’ Obama said in am August 30, 2005 statement from Donetsk. ‘Some of this stockpile dates from World War I and II, yet most dates from Cold War buildup and the stocks left behind by Soviet withdrawals from East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland.’

‘We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.’

Making the world safe from Ukrainian hegemony? Was he on drugs? (Never mind, he’d just plead the fifth.)

Obama said then that the existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program ‘has effectively disposed of thousands of weapons of mass destruction, but we must do far more to keep deadly conventional weapons like anti-aircraft missiles out of the hands of terrorists.’

How’d that work out? So glad you asked:

Much of the Ukrainian small-arms supply was ultimately exported, not scrapped, by a Yushchenko regime that chose revenue from arms dealing over the cost of melting down metal.

In 2008 the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that between 2004 and 2007, the Ukrainian Export Control Service told the UN that it sent 721,777 small arms and light weapons to 27 different countries.

The United States was the top recipient, with more than 260,000 of those weapons, followed by the UK and Libya, which each imported more than 101,000.

Could it be that Senator Obama’s imbecility in 2005 led to the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods in 2012—on President Obama’s watch? Sounds like. And two years later, Crimea fell.

I heard a caller on talk radio make the point that Putin is ex-KGB (once KGB, always KGB). As such, he would have had mountains of material—opposition research, if you will—on the Left in America. Heck, they funded much of it. They would have known who Barack Obama was, merely from his associations with Bill Ayers, with Jeremiah Wright, with Derrick Bell. And they would have had a whole folder filled with pictures and clippings of this episode alone.

Putin took no risk invading Crimea. He knew Obama wouldn’t oppose him; it sounds like Obama supports him. “We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.”

Obama was right: after eliminating Ukraine’s means of self defense, it had to no choice but to stay out of conflict. And Putin just laughs. Bashar Assad told him it would be easy, but he didn’t believe him.

Comments (2)

And Here’s The Sanity Side

Obama is an embarrassment

The writer points out that even Jimmy Carter wasn’t this bad.

Leaders of other countries don’t respect President Barack Obama, said 53 percent of respondents in Gallup’s annual World Affairs poll, conducted Feb. 3-6. That only 53 percent of Americans think this is an indictment of the news media’s coverage of foreign affairs.

He would lead the world by “deed and example,” not try to “bully it into submission,” Sen. Barack Obama wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2007.

In a major foreign policy speech in 2008, Mr. Obama said he would focus on “ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

The key elements of his foreign policy were to be a “reset” of relations with Russia, and outreach to Muslims.

To symbolize “reset,” when they met in Geneva, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red plastic button modeled on the “easy button” in the Staples ads.

“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world,” Mr. Obama said in a much ballyhooed speech in Cairo in June, 2009.

No president has talked the talk so well, but walked the walk so badly.

Don’t you feel ashamed for him? He’s an adult. He believed this stuff.

And to quote our fearless leader, “Here’s what is true”:

The plastic button Ms. Clinton gave Mr. Lavrov was supposed to say “reset” in English and Russian. But “peregruzka” means “overcharged.” Relations went downhill from there.

To appease Russia, President Obama cancelled a ballistic missile defense treaty with Poland and the Czech Republic. But the more concessions he made, the more contempt with which he was treated by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

His Russian policy has been a total failure. But it hasn’t backfired as much as has Mr. Obama’s “outreach” to Muslims:

• Iran is closer than ever to a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama weakened economic sanctions as a gesture of goodwill, so now the mullahs have the money to finish the job.

• Saudi Arabia is so angered by Mr. Obama’s appeasement of Iran it refused a seat on the U.N. Security Council; so frightened by it the Saudis are talking quietly with the Israelis about joint military action.

• In what had been our foremost Arab ally, Egypt, the president’s dalliance with the Muslim Brotherhood has alienated both the military and the people.

• Mr. Obama waged war of dubious legality to oust Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, an evil, mean, nasty, rotten guy, but not, since 2005, a threat to the United States. (He gave up his nuclear weapons program because he was afraid what happened to Saddam Hussein might happen to him.)

In the chaotic aftermath, al-Qaida has established a stronghold there. An al-Qaida affiliate murdered U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

• Seventy percent of the 2,313 Americans killed in Afghanistan died after President Obama escalated the war. They died in vain. The Taliban is expected to take over when U.S. troops leave.

• The fighting in Iraq was over when Barack Obama took the oath of office. His inept diplomacy and premature withdrawal of all U.S. troops permitted an al-Qaida resurgence there.

• Worldwide, al-Qaida is as great a threat today as it was in 2001, the director of national intelligence told Congress last month.

• Peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians have gone nowhere, which is nothing new. But Barack Obama is the first U.S. president to lose the trust of both Israelis and Palestinians.

• More than 130,000 people have been killed in the civil war in Syria. President Obama threatened to intervene militarily on one side, then, after pressure from the Russians, in effect switched to the other, to the dismay of our European allies.

Isn’t that depressing?

Not even the hapless Jimmy Carter made so big a mess. Relations have soured even with Canada, which is tired of being jerked around on the Keystone pipeline.

It’s time the news media noticed.

It is way, way past time for the medial dolts to notice and to cover this. But they won’t. At this point, how can they? How embarrassing that they have allowed this to happen without coverage.

- Aggie

Comments

Sarah Palin Called The Fact That Putin Would Invade Ukraine And Obama Would Be Too Lame To Stop Him

I wonder what Katie Couric is thinking?

Sarah Palin may be having a bragging rights moment.

In 2008, when she was the GOP vice presidential nominee, Palin questioned in a speech whether then-Sen. Barack Obama would have the foreign policy credentials to handle a scenario in which Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

“After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence – the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next,” she said in Reno, Nevada on October 21, 2008.

The former Alaska governor was happy to highlight her prediction on Friday and scold those who criticized her 2008 comments.

“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska,” she said on Facebook. That remark was a reference to a 2008 interview in which Palin argued that Alaska’s proximity to Russia helped boost her foreign policy experience.

Saturday Night Live parodied her remarks in a now-famous sketch with Tina Fey, who played Palin on the show, saying “I can see Russia from my house.”

On Facebook, Palin continued to explain how she anticipated a growing crisis between Russia and Ukraine, where there has now been an uncontested arrival of Russian military forces by air at a Russian base in Ukraine’s Crimea region. They are believed to be Russian land forces, according to a U.S. assessment.

Political tension grows in Ukraine’s Crimea region

“I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as ‘an extremely far-fetched scenario’ by the ‘high-brow’ Foreign Policy magazine.”

Democrats are so dumb.

- Aggie

Comments

Tom Harkin Went to Cuba

And all we got was his lousy propaganda.

So, Marco Rubio filled in the blanks:

A few moments ago, the body was treated to a report from the senator from Iowa about his recent trip to Cuba. Sounded like he had a wonderful trip visiting, what he described as, a real paradise. He bragged about a number of things that he learned on his trip to Cuba that I’d like to address briefly. He bragged about their health care system, medical school is free, doctors are free, clinics are free, their infant mortality rate may be even lower than ours. I wonder if the senator, however, was informed, number one, that the infant mortality rate of Cuba is completely calculated on figures provided by the Cuban government. And, by the way, totalitarian communist regimes don’t have the best history of accurately reporting things. I wonder if he was informed that before Castro, Cuba, by the way, was 13th in the whole world in infant mortality. I wonder if the government officials who hosted him, informed him that in Cuba there are instances reported, including by defectors, that if a child only lives a few hours after birth, they’re not counted as a person who ever lived and therefore don’t count against the mortality rate.

I wonder if our visitors to Cuba were informed that in Cuba, any time there is any sort of problem with the child in utero they are strongly encouraged to undergo abortions, and that’s why they have an abortion rate that skyrockets, and some say, is perhaps the highest the world. I heard him also talk about these great doctors that they have in Cuba. I have no doubt they’re very talented. I’ve met a bunch of them. You know where I met them? In the United States because they defected. Because in Cuba, doctors would rather drive a taxi cab or work in a hotel than be a doctor. I wonder if they spoke to him about the outbreak of cholera that they’ve been unable to control, or about the three-tiered system of health care that exists where foreigners and government officials get health care much better than that that’s available to the general population.

He wasn’t done. But Harkin, and all the other apologists for Communism, should be.

But Harkin’s not ignorant. Well, of course he is. But he’s well-informed: he knows everything Rubio says is true. Yet he praises Castro’s Cuba; he praises the whole package. He has no problem with it. As the last five years have made amply evident, Democrats have no problem with any of this at all.

Comments

Minimum Wage To Rise; Poor, Homeless Hardest Hit

Don’t worry, it’s actually quite amusing.

It’s happening in Seattle! Hahahahaha!!!!

A proposal to raise Seattle’s minimum wage to $15 an hour would force many nonprofit organizations to either shut their doors or limit their services to the disabled and needy, according to a preliminary study conducted by the Seattle Human Services Coalition (SHSC).

The authors of the study concluded that, “Since nonprofits generally do not have the option of covering an increase in wages by ‘raising their prices or decreasing profits,’ resources would either have to be added to the agency or be shifted within the agency in order to raise wages.”

They noted that the extreme wage hikes would adversely impact Seattle’s most downtrodden residents.

“Without additional resources added, often the only option would be to decrease or cut services, meaning the impacts would be felt first by the most vulnerable members of the Seattle communities: the people who need these services,” read the study.

The study found that shelter beds for the homeless, meal service for the formerly homeless and housing for the disabled could in some cases be eliminated. Head Start availability would be decreased, eliminating at least one classroom serving 20 children. Food banks would be closed one or more days per week, with some possibly closing entirely.

If those homeless and disabled would only get a job, they’d be rolling in clover! Fifteen bucks an hour? Who needs pre-school if you can learn to bag fries?

I’m sorry. I don’t really want the poor to go hungry or the homeless to shiver in the cold rain of the Pacific Northwest. That’s what Seattle liberals want. But I can at least laugh at their inept do-goodery.

And I do. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Comments (3)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »