Blog de KingShamus

"When an entire nation thirsted to break free from PC…Andrew Breitbart opened a big bar."–Chris Muir

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

2012–Obama’s Ascendancy or Conservative Reform?

Posted by KingShamus on January 1, 2013

Let’s face facts, people.  Conservatism really took it on the chin in 2012.  After all, Republican Mitt Romney got his ass beat by left-wing ideologue Barack Obama.  The Supreme Court, led by John “No Seriously, Dubya Nominated Me!” Roberts, upheld ObamaCare.  The US Senate remained in the hands of Democrat Majority Leader embarrassment Harry Reid.

Look at some of the dire metrics going against conservatives. The fiscal cliff deal is all tax hikes, no spending cuts and a whole lot of kabuki theater nonsense.  The media remains a statist bullhorn and progressive piggy bank all in one.  The education establishment is committed to indoctrinating America’s youth in the ways of Karl Marx while failing to teach them how to read.  According to conventional wisdom, the Right should spare themselves the embarrassment of a messy end, get into a dark corner, curl up in a ball and quietly die.


Just like it croaked in 2009, right?

Seems as if once more, conservatism didn’t listen to it’s sworn enemies or it’s fair-weather friends.

Consider the following sequence of events.  On Election Night, Barack Obama’s hottest sexual fantasy was fulfilled when Mitt Romney delivered a submissive beta-male concession speech.  Just over a month later, Governor Rick Snyder made right-to-work the law of the land in union-dominated Michigan.

That certainly wasn’t supposed to happen.  Just like after Obama won in 2008, the left was stoked to see America morph into a slightly bigger less ouzo-fueled Greece.  Socialist values were destined to sweep away all the bitter-clingers and their retrograde obsessions with the US Constitution, free market socialism and keeping some of the money they earned through the sweat of their labors.  All that hackneyed 18th century Enlightenment jive was going out the door, replaced by Barack Obama’s brand of shiny happy grievance-group buy-offs.

The Mitten State, of all places, was thought to be one of the strongholds of Barack Obama’s national progressive realignment.  Big aggressive labor groups pumping piles of money into Democrat campaign coffers has been the great idea in the Donkey-Puncher playbook since the Paleolithic Era.  Now that beloved Donkey-Puncher strategy is in serious jeopardy.

Lest you think this is an isolated right-wing victory in a sea of conservative defeats, ponder the fact that during what was supposed to be the new Progressive Golden Age, no Republican has lost a governorship since 2007.  Thirty states have a GOP chief executive.  Twenty-one states have both a Republican governor and a GOP-controlled legislature.  Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker not only survived a nasty recall race, he annihilated the competition and looks poised to win a second term.

Seen this way, it’s clear many states welcome right-of-center politics.  They’re comfortable letting conservatives–or ‘Republicans‘ at least–run their governments.  Why didn’t all that translate into a win for Mitt Romney?

Maybe because Romney just didn’t offer enough of a contrast to Barack Obama’s galloping socialism.  Forget for a moment that the former Taxachussetts governor got less votes in ’12 than that famous arch rightwing stalwart John McCain did in 2008.  Instead, look at how well the Libertarian Party candidate did.  Gary Johnson scored 44,000 votes in Florida.  Ohio gave 47,000 votes to the former New Mexico governor.  He snagged 48,000 votes in the Keystone State.

To be fair, with the exception of Florida, none of these vote counts could’ve put Romney ahead of Obama.  But you can look at these Gary Johnson voters, along with Mitt’s overall lack of support, as indicative of a general conservative dismay with the Republican nominee.  If the GOP presidential candidate isn’t going to stand up forcefully to the President, why should anybody else?  Many voters made the entirely reasonable conclusion that Romney was a weak specimen, and they looked at other options.  This in turn created a min-Perot effect, where the traditionalist/conservative vote was split in several states and was depressed across the country.

The Romney campaign seemed to take an awful lot of voters for granted.  Social issues like abortion were never really addressed, except in the quietest most defensive way possible.  Gun enthusiasts got a few perfunctory interviews in various National Rifle Association publications, but that was pretty much it.  It seemed as if Team Mitt felt these voters–who make a large chunk of the Republican base–were just going to fall in line.  Those Republicans were not swayed by Romney’s sotto voce strategy, and it ended up costing Romney dearly.

Worse, by not going out and arguing against Obama’s anti-life positions or his thinly-veiled hatred of the Second Amendment, the GOP nominee allowed David Axelrod and Co. to define him as an out of touch racist gay-bashing plutocrat who wanted to chain women to an ironing board while simultaneously giving them cancer.  In retrospect, the Romney campaign ran an absurd race.  While Mitt wanted the election to be about jobs and the economy, Obama and the media (sorry for the repetition) made it about what an unlikable piece of shit Romney is.

Sadly the Democrat’s plan worked, because the Republican nominee was unable to defend himself from a barrage of attacks. Nor could he articulate strong positions that excited important parts of the GOP base. Worse, he couldn’t effectively pivot any of his policy positions into personal or political slams against Barack Obama.

In short, conservatism’s problems in 2012 were much the same as they were in 2008.  Nationally, their standard-bearer was n astoundingly poor choice to represent the vast center-right coalition that should be natural Republican Party supporters.  In contrast, state level conservatives are enacting serious reforms.  Once you look beyond Washington DC’s poisonous liberal assumptions, there is a muscular conservatism to be found in the rest of the nation that is making progress against the utterly unsustainable blue state model.

Maybe the Right should do what Rush Limbaugh says.

Let’s try conservatism, just for a second, just to see how it feels.

Now in the short term, conservatives will certainly take some licks.  Their nominal party just lost an election.  That tends to have painful consequences.  More ominously, the Republican’s caving in to the fiscal cliff deal might just be the final nail in the Party’s coffin.  That means precious time will be lost as conservatives coalesce behind a new opposition party.  If that process is done quickly a regenerated Tea Party, flush with new supporters, could become a more effective bulwark against the Democrat’s hateful statism than the feckless GOP.

Looking at the situation in total, 2012 gave conservatives plenty of heartburn.  But in some ways, the failure of the Republican Party’s presidential campaign and the success of the state-level GOP gives the Right options it did not have in 2011.  We have principled leaders in positions of power who have started tearing down liberalism’s failed policies.  The Right can tout their successes and compare them to Obama’s catastrophes.

Even better, conservatives no longer just have to accept what the Republican Party tries to spoon-feed them.  The Right has gotten very little out of it’s coalition with the Beltway GOP besides a pair of busted presidential campaigns and a very strained frenemy-esque relationship.  Perhaps it’s time to remind the Republican Party who really is the junior partner in the firm.

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Foreign doings, Media Silliness, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Personal Values, Political Choices

Posted by KingShamus on November 19, 2012

A personal observation taken from the post-election wreckage.

On Election Night, I sat in a coffee house reading Twitter and scanning the Fox News website for the vote tallies.  I couldn’t sit in my cold dark place without power.  I didn’t feel like just listening to the radio for the returns to come in.  So there I was, drinking a root beer and listening to cookie-cutter smooth jazz as Mitt Romney went down to ignominious defeat.

While making jokes to brighten my mood (Q–What do you call a guy who has $5 trillion dollars in debt, 8% unemployment and the Benghazi disaster? A–Mister President.) I overheard a conversation between two college girls.  It went something like this:

Lady A:  The election is tonight?

Lady B:  Yeah.

Lady A:  I kinda like Mitt Romney.

Lady B:  Yeah, but he wants to take away student loans.

Lady A:  Screw that shit.

Let me add:  These two young women didn’t seem like bad people.  Maybe not as clued-in as one might hope, but not many 19 year-olds are terribly invested in national politics.  They were just shooting the breeze at a coffee shop.  It was clear that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama did not loom large in their lives.  Which is pretty much how most Americans are disconnected from the daily political grind.

A few days later, I found myself at a gas station line waiting to fill some cans to feed my generator.  The guy working there looked like he was in his early twenties.  He must’ve seen the NRA sticker on my bumper because he asked me, “Is Obama really looking to end the right to keep and bear arms?  Because I’m concerned about that.”

Homeboy seemed like a nice enough dude.  While he probably wasn’t an Obama supporter, he didn’t seem like an overly political person.  He had a post-election worry regarding the newly re-elected President, but other than that he appeared like the sort of man who didn’t engage himself in partisan bickering very often.

Both of these encounters struck me as amazing in their own ways.

It’s important to note something sorta obvious:  we live in an enormously diverse country.  The opinions of the citizenry range from wide left to far right, from the lowest grubby obsessions to the highest spiritual aspirations.  Because we are surrounded by this massive continent-spanning society, it’s easy to forget just how dynamic our culture really is.  Even our most wretched debased theories are vaguely interesting, if only because of the scope of the awfulness involved.  On the other hand, our grandest and greatest ideas are so transcendent that they expand human freedom and perspective in previously unimaginable ways.

It’s mind-blowing to think that two very different expressions of ideology–“Mitt wants to snatch my college money”/”Barack wants to confiscate my guns”–can happily coexist.  Yet they do, in a more or less peaceful way.  Our elections are bitterly contested, but for the most part actual wide-spread violence hasn’t visited our political disputes for a long time.

What we learned on Elections Day–and this, sadly, is a lesson some of us will have to re-learn a few times now–is that our politics flows out from the vast American culture.  Politicians are a reflection of our religious values, our social norms, our manners, our entertainments and even our petty diversions.  As of November 2012, the result of our grand national partisan argument makes it unclear whether America really is the center-right country some of us have assumed it was.

Don’t get it twisted.  There are at least 59 million people who are at least sorta sympathetic to a right-of-center political vision.  More people are reading conservative-ish books than liberal screeds.  More people call themselves conservative than identify as left-wing.  These are very large numbers.  They indicate that there is still a sizable electoral minority and perhaps a broad plurality that comes to the ballot box with a traditionalist background.

Having said that, it appears that there are more Americans who believe that college loans (along with a whole host of things) should be doled out by the feds.  At the very least, more lefty-sympathetic citizens than right-of-center folks can be motivated to vote.  Do left-of-center people believe in big government because their politicians tell them to?  Or do they come to the voting booth with progressive ideas already entrenched in their worldview and are simply looking for parties and politicians who can make liberal policies a reality?

I’d also argue that those who choose liberalism and buy it’s wares are much like other consumers in our society.  Social conservatives lament that American pop culture is full of filth and decadence and arrogance and stupidity.  Free-market conservatives often respond that pop culture is merely producing what the market demands.

The same thing goes for American politics.  Conservatives are often annoyed that so many people consume so much of the liberal kultursmog; the Washington Post, the Daily Kos, the English Department of Montclair State University and almost anything financed by Harvey Weinstein or written by Aaron Sorkin.  Maybe people consume progressive media because it’s the only one readily available.  Most people will choose a debased culture rather than no culture at all.

Even worse, after another mortifying Election Night loss, righties scratch their heads and wonder why they got buried.

Seeing just how much cultural ground the Right has given up, along with how many delivery mechanisms the Left just flat-out owns, it’s astounding that Republicans are able to squeak out any victories at all.

What the traditionalists, free-marketeers, social cons and defense hawks must get through their heads ASAFP is that they’re never going to score decisive electoral victories without first scoring some major cultural victories first.  They’ve already ceded so much ground to the vast left-wing idiocracy.  It’s well past time for conservatives to start taking American civilization back from the degenerates, racists, whiners and liars that currently run the show.

Only then will the Right start to reverse both their electoral fortunes and the decline of the greatest country in the history of humanity.

UPDATE:  Linked by Starless over at The Conservative Commune.  Thanks, mi amigo.

Here’s a sample:

Yes, we need to appeal to Youth Voters and include them in the political process but there comes a time when we have to help them avoid behaving irresponsibly. When we are obligated — evenmorally obligated — to save them from themselves. We can’t do that if we continue to try to pander to their every petty whim and precious ideal.


Posted in Domestic Happenings, The Social Scene | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Post-Presidential Election 2012: Splitting Headache Edition

Posted by KingShamus on November 12, 2012

Okay, I was wrong.

Terribly, miserably and utterly wrong.

For what its worth, I am very sorry.

For my all ten of my readers, I apologize if I gave you false hope.

If it makes you feel better, I think I gave myself a lot more false hope than I gave you.  I knew it was going to be tighter than I predicted, but I let some of the data sway me.  More, I let aspirations triumph over experience.  My bad.  I’ll try not to let it happen again.

In any event, here’s my loosely organized thoughts on Mitt Romney’s defeat:

1-How long have liberals dominated the education establishment, from pre-school to grad school, in this country?  Since the late 60’s or early 70’s is probably  a good guess.  A constitutional republican order would have a hard time surviving one generation exposed to constant socialist indoctrination.  In America, we’ve decided to let roughly two or three generations of kids grow up with a teaching community whose ideology is often antithetical to the traditional American ideals of limited government, a sovereign citizenry and property rights.

How many people in America have a bachelor’s degree?  Over thirty percent.  This means that almost a third of our country has been subjected to four years of leftist propaganda, with seventy-two percent of college lecturers describe themselves as  liberal.  Knowing this, ponder just how much time the average college kid spends being marinated in a campus culture where most, if not all, the socio-political assumptions are Marxist.  Knowing this, it’s more shocking that anyone escapes their university years not completely indoctrinated in  socialist theory.

2-How much money do American media corporations donate to left-wing candidates? It was a multi-million dollar figure this year.  By itself, that isn’t all that surprising.  A lot of people understand that the media is very biased against conservatism and right-of-center political figures.

What makes the MSM so powerful isn’t their money.  They are formidable because they are both a Democrat Party piggy bank and a dominant shaper of American culture.  The money they pump into the statist caucus is massive, but it can be seen and measured and countered.  What cannot be quantified, because it is so diffuse, are the biases they broadcast into society.

Study the last twelve years of media behavior.  Look at the vastly different treatments given by the MSM to the last two US presidents.

Hypothetical–What if George Bush had presided over the Benghazi tragedy?  Can you imagine Candy Crowley shielding Dubya from criticism during a presidential debate?  Would the commentariat be doing a media blackout to protect Premier Booosh from a major foreign policy disaster that he created?  Would Bush  be able to get away with not answering questions about the debacle?

Of course, none of that would’ve happened.

George Bush was a Republican.  And he was rich.  And he was tough on Muslim terrorists.  And his vice-president was Halliburton.  And he stole the 2000 election.  So yeah, George Dumbya had to be torn down.

And that’s just the news media.

Look at all the movies Hollywood made trashing George Bush.  Now think about the hagiographic film La-La Land is making for Barack Obama.  Notice a difference?

If that’s too blatantly partisan for your tastes, do a quick mental scroll through the last five first-run major studio movies you’ve watched.  Can you think of any that celebrated–not in a namby-pamby sotto-voce manner, but in a loud ‘n proud way–things like the nuclear family, gun rights, the pro-life position or free-market capitalism?  Or were there numerous parts of those last five flicks that clashed with your political beliefs?  My guess is that your experiences probably ran closer to the latter than the former.

In short, the entertainment industry routinely makes films specifically designed to denigrate right-of-center values and pump up the socialist volume.  The major pop-culture players aren’t just left-wingers.  They are proselytizers of the only religion progressives actually believe in–big intrusive government.

I keep hearing how the MSM is dying.  Lots of folks on the Right insist that the power of the print/broadcast/motion picture/music business is waning.  I want to believe that.  I still kinda do.

But at least for the short term, and maybe even the medium term, the media-industrial complex is gonna keep being the Left’s ace in the hole.

3-But even with all that going against the Republican Party and conservatism in general, Mitt Romney still had a decent chance to win the contest.  Lots of people, including silly ol’ me, thought the former Massachusetts governor was going to score a victory.  So what happened on Election Day?

In a word, Mitt Romney’s get-out-the-vote operation was a disaster.  This in turn helped contribute to an election where Obama was re-elected with less votes than he scored in 2008, but the GOP lost by about 400,000 votes across four key states.

The bad part is that the mechanical breakdowns on the part of Team Romney led to their candidate’s defeat.

The good part is this is one area where Republicans can immediately improve.

The really bad part is this is the only area where Republicans can immediately improve.

4-Twenty seven percent of Latinos voted for Romney.  Mitt got a whole whopping six percent of the black vote.  Asian voters were so enthused over the prospect of a President Romney they gave him twenty-six percent of their vote.

Demographics are simply not on the side of the GOP.

Here’s a pithy name for Election 2012:  “Ted Kennedy’s Last Triumph”.  It was Senator Chappaquiddick, along with many other liberals, who were most enthusiastic about the 1965 immigration reform.  That act shifted how many immigrants America imported into itself.  Instead of taking in mostly Europeans, the US has opened it’s doors to vast numbers of people from Latin America, Asia and Africa.  This has had a profound effect on our politics and will continue to do so for decades.

Put simply, if you’re unhappy with an electorate, if you don’t like their policy preferences, their religious beliefs or their social mores, a good way to deal with that is to simply change the composition of the electorate until you get the citizenry you desire.

Knowing this, look at how brilliantly the Democrats have positioned themselves.  They are the party of massive government services.  What population group uses massive government services–like welfare–in proportionally far greater numbers than almost anybody else in America?  Immigrants.

One couldn’t have drawn up the play any better.  The Donkey-Punchers have run the equivalent of Phil Jackson’s triangle offense on the American population.  The Republicans have been too stupid to realize it.

5-Put it all together: A population that has been propagandized more than it has been educated.  A popular culture that largely despises traditional American values.  An immigration policy that imports huge numbers of voters who are sympathetic to progressive Democrat Party policies.  A campaign that couldn’t get out of it’s own way enough to activate it’s base in a winnable election.

The only good thing about this loss is that it might be so painful, even the GOP leadership along the rank-n-file will wake up. Maybe.  Possibly.  If we’re lucky.

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , | 9 Comments »

Election Day 2012

Posted by KingShamus on November 6, 2012

Alright, America.

You know what to do.

If you want Barack Obama to take his rightful place as the local has-been at Pebble Beach’s 19th Hole Bar and Grill, you must vote for Mitt Romney.

Not Gary Johnson.

Not Ron Paul.

Not Jill Stein.

Not Roseanne Barr.

Mitt Romney.

It’s really that simple.

Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can stop Barack Obama’s profligate spending, deleterious energy policies, divisive racialism and international bungling.  If these things concern you, you have a clear choice.  If Mister Obama’s record makes you nervous about the future of your country, you can do something about it.

Vote Mitt Romney.

Now, on to some links and commentary.

Here’s a good reminder from Ace.

…remember in 2000, all the networks, even Fox, called Florida before polls there were even closed.

The Republican-heavy Panhandle could vote until 8 PM Eastern, but the genius networks didn’t know that, and insisted the polls shut down at 7 PM Eastern– telling Republican voters in a densely-populated area of the state to not vote.

And then they compounded that by calling the state for Gore.

Telling Republicans the polls were closed when they were still open for another hour was one of the biggest dirty tricks played in the history of politics, and probably turned Florida from a clean Bush win into a very, very narrow, intensely disputed one.

In addition, claiming Bush had lost the election by 7 PM eastern undoubtedly poisoned the spirits of Republicans in more westerly states. And remember, that year, New Mexico was lost by Bush by something like a thousand total votes.

Wisconsin was also not called until the day after the election. People forget that. I did. I only know this because I spent last night reviewing the coverage of Election Night 2000.

Read the rest.

Think about it this way.  Back in 2000, the MSM was willing to risk it’s credibility to give a big helping hand to the idiot nepot Al Gore.  If they were willing to play those kinds of dirty tricks for him, what won’t they do for their own Personal Jesus?

This isn’t just another presidential election.  This is the lamestream media’s Armageddon.  This is the culmination of their massive cold war against flyover country.  They want Obama to win just so he can put all the stubborn bitter-clingers and evil reich-wingers in their rightful place.

Conservatives and traditionalists–ignore the media today.  They are not your ally.  In fact, they never have been.  Furthermore, they do not have your best interests, or your country’s best interests, at heart.  They are just another wing of the progressive movement, a movement dedicated to fundamentally transforming this country into a worker’s paradise.

The press ardently pines for your depression and apathy.  They don’t want you to vote.  They want you to think Obama has this thing in the bag.

Again, put these craven leftist hacks in your rear-view mirror and forget about them.

Read Robert Stacy McCain’s on-site reportage from Ohio.  Check out Meep’s awesome charts and graphs.  Ponder the Sentry Journal’s sage advice.  Shake your head at the New Black Panthers pulling their same old song and dance in Philadelphia.

Focus on what you have to do today.  Don’t get demoralized by the media’s epic douchebaggery.  We can win this.  In fact, we will win it, if we turn out.

Which brings me to my prediction.

Why am I doing this?  Why am I putting myself out on a ledge?  Besides being a glutton for punishment?  I dunno.

Here’s the thing.  If the GOP’s Get-out-the-Vote efforts are even just ‘sorta good’, this race will be over tonight.  Forget about Ohio.  I know they’ve all but guaranteed a recount with their wacky voting nonsense.

No, Mitt Romney will win Ohio.  Ironically, he won’t need it.  Because his map will look like something like this:

Romney will take somewhere in the neighborhood of 315 electoral votes to Obama’s 223.  Even if Team Barry disputes the hell out of the Ohio vote count, it won’t matter.  He can litigate the results till Antarctica continental-drifts itself into a tropical paradise.  Mitt will flip Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Furthermore, I think Romney will put a scare into Minnesota Democrats.  He’ll get a big turnout in the Michigan burbs and hinterlands before Detroit’s insane liberal voting bloc puts Obama over the top there.   While the Romney/Ryan ticket won’t win in those two states, he’ll do well enough to shock many in the leftist commentariat.

Will the Donkey-Punchers have inflated numbers due to massive voter fraud turnout?  Certainly.  Will it be enough to change the outcome?  No.

The only way Obama scores a victory today is if he is somehow able to keep it close enough in Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin so that the big city voter fraud operations can carry him over the finish line.  The Bamster can only win a squeaker.  But that scenario is only operational if the conservatives and Republicans don’t turn out to vote.

Which they will.

Again, ya’all know what to do.  Swamp the cheaters.  Outvote the statists.  Perplex the progs.  Beat Obama.

By midnight tonight, we will have a new president.

And then the work of turning this great and glorious country around will have just begun.

I’ll be on Twitter, rocking out.

Shoot me a line so we can laugh at Chris Matthews shitting his pants on national television.

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Media Silliness, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , | 9 Comments »

So It’s A Debate We’re A-Havin’ Tonight

Posted by KingShamus on October 3, 2012

Some thoughts:

Mitt Romney could sneak out a win if he can get under Barack Obama’s famously thin skin.  Prince Barry hates it when the lowly peons, aka everyone who isn’t him, gets lippy in his presence.  Romney has a way of throwing his opponents subtly cutting remarks.  When Obama gets a little frayed by Mitt’s ‘aw shucks, you suck’ jiu-jitsu, Bamster could easily slip into his default snippy dickbag mode.  That’s not a good look for the pResident or his re-election efforts.

While making Barry angry would make for better theater, the more likely way Romney wins is if he cogently restates and sharply elaborates on Obama’s record of economic failure and foreign policy incompetence.  The President is in a full-on Jimmah Carter tailspin.  The only thing keeping him above water is his elite Democratic Guard press corps.  If Romney can go around whatever lefty media hack is running the debate, he has a chance to show America just how hollow the Cult of Obama really is.

The President will naturally get a lot of cover from the moderator.  He will treated like the challenger.  Mitt will be the de facto incumbent who has defend his ‘record’.  It’s annoying that the GOP set themselves up to be roasted by the Donkey-Puncher’s media minions, but that situation can’t be changed now.

Even with all that going against Romney, if Mitt’s on his game, he can strike a serious and lasting blow to Obama’s re-election.

Okay, that’s all I got.  I’ll be on twitter if you need me.  Peace out, homies.

UPDATE:  Ummmm, Mitt Romney won the debate.

It’s hard to say what was the best part of the night.

Chris Matthews pissing his pants in utter panic was pretty cool.

“What is Obama doing? I never know what he’s doing…back there.”

Al Sharpton said that, while Obama lost tonight’s debate, Joe Biden is totally gonna rescue Barry from electoral doom.

In other news, Reverend Al thinks the replacement refs got the call exactly right in the Seattle-Green Bay Monday Night Football game.

Big time right winger Andrew Sullivan, who despite all his conservative bona fides wants to make babies with President For Life Obama, realized  Barry was getting an ass-beating at around 9:16.  The debate began at 9:00.  Heh.

Stefanie ‘Turd” Cutter says Jim Lehrer did a poor job of moderating the debate.  This is the most important narrative the Left can push from tonight.  They’re basically telling their allies in the media to tighten up the next debate’s moderation.  By ‘tighten up’, I of course mean ‘trip up Paul Ryan on every question’.  Watch for Joe Biden to get a lot of leeway to spout his usual bullshit.

In any event, it was a great first debate.  But it was just one win.  The funny thing about that?  You can only win his debate once.  Romney-Ryan needs at least two more debate wins.  Going .500 won’t cut it.

See you tomorrow, ya’all.

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Nathan Lane: Prince Barry’s Court Jester

Posted by KingShamus on August 25, 2012

It’s springtime for Obama in the Hamptons.

“I love Nurse Jackie, she can’t get through the day without Vicodin, Adderall, Percocet, Xanax and Oxycodone­—which, oddly enough, also happens to be the names of Mitt Romney’s five children,”

Nathan Lane at a Obama fundraiser…

It’s a good thing the organizers of this rubber chicken dinner hired a first-rate comedic genius like Nathan Lane. Leave it to him to make the hilarious connection between a narcotic-addicted fictional TV character and Mitt Romney’s five grown sons, none of which have ever been accused of having drug problems.  Add to that how Vicodin, Adderall, Percocet, Xanax and Oxycodone sound just like Taggart, Matthew, Joshua, Benjamin and Craig.  Lane simply had to go with such a great bit.


Folks on the right are gonna get mad because a Hollywood liberal made fun of Romney’s sons, who are not running for political office.  The thing is, after the last four years nobody in the conservative movement should be shocked when actors and musicians throw cheap shots at the children of Republican politicians.  As much as the political wing of the socialist movement constantly calls for civil discourse, they can always count on their allies in the entertainment division to blow right through any rules that put family members off-limits.

This is one reason why the progressive alliance with the American media puts conservatives at a huge disadvantage.  Democrat politicians can always stay above the fray.  They can play the high-minded thinker act for the public with the knowledge that somebody from Hollywood will gladly break every rhetorical limit to score a shot against Republicans and conservatives.

But that’s not the worst thing.  I keep hearing how Nathan Lane is a wonderous comedic talent.  Where was that genius for getting laughs when he wrote the ‘Romney kid’s’ bit?  The joke only works if you’re a brainless trained-seal Romney hater: “ROMNEY’S KIDZ ARE NAMED DRUGS!!!!  DRUGS FUNNY!!!!  HAR-DEE-HAR!!!!”

I mean, I guess Nathan Lane should get some credit for understanding the desires of his audience.

Then again, what does it say about the rich Obama supporters that they respond to such a hacky stupid ham-handed joke?

Posted in Celebutards! | Tagged: , , , | 10 Comments »

No, Really–Barack Obama is David Dinkins

Posted by KingShamus on August 8, 2012

So says PJMedia’s Michael Walsh.

As we close in on Election Day, everyone’s naturally fixated on the Obama-Romney race. But if I were the Democrats, I’d be radiating the calm confidence of  (in Mark Twain’s famous phrase) “a Christian holding four aces.” Because as much as Obama hates Romney and loves the golfing and partying aspect of being president, the truth is that many Democrats won’t be sorry to see him go. Obama’s ineptitude and his manifest hostility toward the country he nominally leads are embarrassing to many donks, and the increasing likelihood that he will turn out to be a one-term wonder like the first (and so far, only) black mayor of New York, David Dinkins, is causing them to start looking beyond 2012.

You remember Dinkins — he defeated Rudy Giuliani in their first head-to-head match-up in 1989, then lost in 1993 after the Crown Heights riot and other disasters finally brought the citizens to their senses and, holding their noses, they called the cops and elected a law-and-order Republican in place of a liberal Democrat.

I hate to say ‘I told you so three years ago’, but…

Read the rest, as Mister Walsh goes into why an Obama loss might not be the worst thing in the minds of the Donkey Puncher caucus.

While Walsh makes an interesting case, the Presidency is too important for the Democrats to give up on just because St. Barry has all the personal warmth of an ice cube.  In a ditch.  On Pluto.

Look at what the progressive movement has done in just under one fairly ambitious presidential term.  Stealth single-payer health care deform?  Check.  Permanent Porkulus?  Check, again.  The end of welfare reform?  Money for nothing and the check’s for free.


And that’s just in the last four years.  The progs are just dying to pull a Minnesota-style Cloward-Piven election on the rest of America in November.  That, along with ObamaCare, will pretty much cement a whole mess of center-left political assumptions in the fabric of the nation.

That would be bad for many reasons, including this:

You want to see the future if the Democrats win in November?

It’s the Secretary of State of the United States of America dressed in a not-very-flattering Asian inspired get-up grinding on another chick’s ample posterior–FOREVER.

The Michael Walsh link came courtesy of Instapundit.  Thanks.

Posted in Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , , | 13 Comments »

How Is The 2012 Election Even Up For Debate?

Posted by KingShamus on July 17, 2012

Seriously, how?

Check out this chart I found over at Vicki’s dope post over at the uber-cool Frugal Cafe Blog.

Read the rest of Vicki’s post.  Great great stuff.

The chart above was created by the Office of Management and Budget as well as the Congressional Budget Office.  When St. Barry and the Dems needed political cover, the CBO (and their rigged report on ObamaCare) was considered the gold standard of accurate budgetary predictions.  I dunno if the Donkey-Punchers want people to see this particular OMB/CBO collaboration.

But hey, let’s say the Orifice of CongressCritter Budgetary Managementarians are waaaaaaay off base here.  How about instead of a ‘Current Path-Obama’s Favorite Death Hole’ of 900% debt to GDP ratio by 2080, we knock that number down to a paltry 450%?  At the same time, let’s say the Path to Prosperity fizzles out.  The debt to GDP ratio goes up to right around 100% and hovers there till 2080.  What would that look like?

Now, a caveat:  These numbers are just hypothetical scenarios I came up with.  I didn’t do any actual math to get there.  I just went with a really rosy prediction with the “Current Path” and a very pessimistic track with the “Path to Prosperity”.

Further, neither one of my projected futures are particularly appealing.  A 100% debt to GDP ratio would be awful.  But which one is closer to sustainable?  Which one suggests a nation that could survive as something recognizable as the United States?

For the Democrats, my chart represents an insanely optimistic possibility.  In reality–namely the CBO/OMB chart–the Dems are offering nothing less than a rapidly expanding oblivion for the foreseeable future.  The President and his sycophants in Congress have done nothing to change or even slow down the current path.

If Americans truly understood what the Democrat agenda means–namely, government spending where a 900% debt to GDP ratio is a distinct probability–this election wouldn’t be close.  In fact, if the citizenry grasped what the Democrats wanted to do to the nation, the leadership of the party would be put into jail.  Or given the tar and feather treatment and run out of the country on a one way flight to North Korea at least.

Posted in Domestic Happenings | Tagged: , , | 11 Comments »

Executive Privilege, Executive Leakage

Posted by KingShamus on June 21, 2012

So let me get this straight.

Premier Obama can send out Tom Donilon to ‘leak’ classified information about the war on terror, our use of cyberwarfare to thwart Iran’s nuclear program, our high-tech methods of gathering intel on our enemies and the absolutely vital on-the-ground assets we’ve used to do all this. The Obambi Administration can give Hollywood movie director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal unprecedented access to the intimate details of the Osama bin Laden assassination strike, in order for the filmmakers to make a feature length campaign propaganda flick.

When it comes to Fast & Furious–a deliberate scheme to run guns into Mexico that the President wanted to use as an excuse to reinstate the Clinton-era assault weapons ban–only then does Admiral Obamster Selectively-Yapsalot want to play the ‘loose lips sink ships’ card.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense to me.

I for one am done writing about these trifling matters. Can’t we focus on the important issues? I hear Eve Ensler performed her “Vagina Monologues” in Michigan the other day. That is where our attention needs to be.

Just stop complaining, poopie-head reich-wing Rethuglicans. Fast and Furious was Bush’s gun-running program. Sheila Jackson Lee said it, so it must be true.

And everyone who is worried about the President leaking vital intelligence in order to make himself look tough need not worry. Obama’s many many many years in the US Senate have prepared him to deal with classified information. Everybody knows that a community organizer/adjunct law school lecturer/junior US senator/beer summit enthusiast is exactly who you want handling our national security secrets.

Posted in Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Because Fashion Is A Passion For The With-It And Hip

Posted by KingShamus on June 18, 2012

Even as the with-it and hip turn out to be self-destructive weirdos being led around by an icy unlikable shrew.

Last week, President Obama made headlines by enlisting two relatively unknown New York City residents–Hollywood film star Sarah Jessica Parker and Vogue edidictatorette Anna Wintour –to host a big-ticket fundraiser for his 2012 reelection campaign.  Naturally the fifty guests who coughed up $40,000 to dine with the President made it a great success, even if SJP’s house didn’t quite meet Ms. Wintour’s exacting standards.

Anyhoo, the confab got blogger-homie Edge of The Sandbox thinking about Ms. Wintour’s place in the fashion industry.

[Anna] Wintour became the Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue in 1988, when supermodels ruled the catwalk.  They were gorgeous and skinny, but had some sort of curve on their improbably thin and long bones.  Cindy Crawford recalls that back in her days models wore the US size 6; they are now zero or 2.  Very few women can have the kind of bodies and the faces that grace the covers of fashion magazines because these covers represented an unattainable ideal.  I know that, and I’m not raving mad because I don’t look like Cindy Crawford.  This is not to suggest that there were no anorexic models in the 80s, but the causes of anorexia nervosa are complicated, and the 80s supermodels were valid as a female ideal.  There were no mistaking them for underdeveloped girls, and no doubt that they turned heads.

Shortly after Wintour assumed the Vogue leadership, the fashion industry elevated a mousy junkie Kate Moss to the status of a fashion icon.  Heroin chic became all the rage, and Moss’s reputation for hard partying solidified her hold on the industry.  Moss did at least six US Vogue covers — far less than the UK and France editions, but still a formidable number.  Last year, Anna Wintour dedicated the cover of her September issue to the wedding of Kate Moss.  Makes me wonder how much space she will devote to her divorce.

It’s a great post, so make sure to clickie that linkie and read the rest of it.

Lots of folks decry the impact that fashion magazines have on women.  The critiques usually go something like this:  The glossy spreads devoted to high-end clothes and pricey beauty creates almost unreachable heights of glamour.  Moreover, the low single digit–or no digit–size of the models are held up as a standard of feminine beauty that almost no woman can live up to except through drugs and/or eating disorders.

Let’s repeat a line of questioning Robert Stacy McCain has asked before:  Who edits the fashion magazines?  Who designs the clothes?  Who hires the models?  Who runs the modelling agencies?

Oh…that’s right.  Bitchy queens and plain old bitches.

Who buys the magazines that create all these problems we love to complain about?  By and large, its women and gay dudes.  Besides George Costanza, straight men don’t read or purchase glossies like Vogue.

Finally, who are the consumers of the clothes in the fashion rags?  It’s women.  To be fair, heterosexual males will pay the $900 it takes to buy a size 2 Dolce & Gabbana dress for their wives or girlfriends.  But they don’t pay much attention to the fashionista trends that make their women want the piece in the first place.  The only reason they’re picking up the D&G swag, as opposed to the girly-cut New York Giants jersey or the lady-fit camo coveralls, is because their chicks dig the frilly dress.

We can with some justification bemoan the influence a nasty hag like Anna Wintour has over our sense of beauty and fashion.  The people who made throwing up after every meal and snorting Hefty bags coke a prerequisite of style are decadent ghouls.  They are to be avoided, not emulated or encouraged.

The problem is that many people–both men and women–have become enablers of these monsters by throwing so much money at the designers and propagandists who push this wacked out standard of beauty.  If we really think heroin chic is gross, why don’t women stop trying to be a size 0?  If we actually like the classic feminine hourglass shape, how come we don’t see guys encouraging their women to double up on the Death By Chocolate cheesecake every once in a while?

In short, Anna Wintour’s aesthetic sensibilities would not be in vogue…or in Vogue for that matter…if we didn’t buy into it.  Anorexia as a dramatic charming fashion statement, as opposed to a life threatening medical condition, is our own fault.  Until we recognize that, we’ll never actually deal with the problem we keep insisting we must address.

More:  I really do mean it when I say that guys have to shoulder some of the blame for the uber-gaunt look that dominates fashion.  Men have girlfriends and wives.  That fact presupposes that dudes will have at least some influence over the women in their lives.  If they really don’t want their lady friends to be shaped like match-sticks, they should say so–in vociferous ways if necessary.

On the other hand, I hear a lot of women hate on the metrosexual look on men.  Yet here we are in 2012, and there are still guys who engage in elaborate manscaping rituals.  Ladies, if you don’t want the man in your life to look like an 11-year-old girl, you’re gonna have to stop taking him for mani-pedis at your nail salon.  You like your fellow to have a hairy chest?  Refrain from telling him about the great waxing place you heard about downtown.  Are you sick of your husband spending 3 hours a day doing crunches to make sure his abs are perfectly toned?  Stock the fridge with a case of Guinness Asphalt and cancel his gym membership, STAT.

Posted in The Social Scene | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »

If Romney Wins…

Posted by KingShamus on April 1, 2012

Seriously, has anybody given that a lot of thought? 

A lot of folks–myself included–have been all wrapped up in the GOP primary fight.  But at least one moron, or should I say ‘Moron’, has been thinking ahead.  Here’s RD Brewer’s recommendations for Mitt Romney in the event he beats Barack Obama in November.

He should talk at length about how things will get worse for a short while before they get better. He needs to emphasize that all the belt-tightening that has to be done because of the Obama administration will necessarily hurt for a while, but that in the long run, the country will be better for it.

He needs to rely heavily upon precedent. It took Ronald Reagan a little over two years to turn things around. Things got worse before they got better. He needs to make this a theme and keep driving the message home.

Sounds like a pretty good strategy.

The only problem I have is the worry most conservatives already have with Mitt.

Is he up to this challenge?  Romney has talked a very good game during the primary season.  Tax cuts, economic growth, restraints on government spending and regulation, repealing ObamaCare; Mitt has consistently hit those themes during his long march to the nomination.   

But a big question remain about Romney.  I mean, we’re 16 trillion dollars in debt.  Medicare and Social Security are about to put the country even further in the red.  We’ve got the architecture in place for a socialized medicine scheme that will cripple the economy.  And all those things are just the most obvious peanuts in of our national turd sandwich.     

Does Romney really grasp the looming apocalypse?  Or does he revert to the unimaginative technocratic centrist role he played earlier in his life?   

How much Mitt can answer those questions for conservatives in the months between now and November will determine if he’ll get to heed Brewer’s sharp advice in January.

Posted in Domestic Happenings | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

Barack, Trayvon and The 2012 Election

Posted by KingShamus on March 27, 2012

In light of recent events surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin, I’d like to bring up something I wrote a few years back.  I was making predictions about how I thought Barack Obama’s presidency would end.  I think I might have lucked into being onto something.

As Obama spins his wheels, his most vocal and loyal bloc-the American mainstream media-attempt to bolster their candidate.  The White House and the journalist caste create the myth that Obama is the victim of lingering racism.  Nearly any lack of support for Barack’s policies will be explained with charges of bigotry.   

Ironically, the post-racial candidate of 2008 will morph into the most explicitly racialist American politician in a generation…He limps through 2011 and 2012 as a dead duck.  As he goes down, he sows the seeds of racial discord, grasping at anything to get him re-elected.

Now look at what President Obama’s comments on the shooting.

“I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Mr. Obama said from the White House Rose Garden, “and when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids, and I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this and that everybody pulls together, federal, state and local, to figure out how this tragedy happened.”

Mr. Obama said he is glad the Justice Department is investigating the shooting and that Florida Gov. Rick Scott formed a task force in response to the incident as well. The president suggested he was sympathetic to suspicion that the shooting may have been racially motivated.

 “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Mr. Obama said.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have officially reached the David Dinkins stage of the Obama presidency.

For those of you unfamiliar with old school Empire State politics, David Dinkins was the mayor of New York City before Rudy Giuliani.  Mr. Dinkins, a black man and veteran New York pol, promised racial healing in the five boroughs.  He presided over, among other things, the lynching of Yankel Rosenbaum during the Crown Heights riots by a group of thugs incited to violence by that paragon of ethnic tolerance Al Sharpton.  

Mayor Dinkins’ police commissioner Lee Brown said: 

“Sharpton came close to the line of inciting [to riot] but did not actually cross it.”

Well, thank God Al Sharpton didn’t go nuts or something bad could’ve happened.  [sarc/]

After the Yankel Rosenbaum murder, Mayor Dinkins became a polarizing figure.  Jewish voters, who had supported him in the past, now viewed him with suspicion.  Dinkins’ 1993 re-election effort was marked by racialism.  Black voters were supposed to support Dinkins because…he was black.  The undertone of the campaign was that failure to support the mayor over Rudy Giuliani was a sign of barely concealed racial bigotry.

In the Trayvon Martin shooting incident, we can see the same pattern emerging.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are on the scene stoking racial tensions.  The New Black Panthers are offering a million dollar bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon.

Into this incredibly heated and rapidly evolving situation, what did Barack Obama do?  He could’ve simply declined to comment.  After all this is basically a local matter, directly involving two people in Florida.  Staying above the fray would’ve been prudent, especially as this case has become a lot more complicated than how the media initially portrayed it. 

The President did not choose to do that.  Instead he chose to stoke racial fires.  He didn’t call on the Sharpton/Jackson/New Black Panther Triumvirate of Stupid o tone down their inflammatory rhetoric.  Obama failed to tell Louis Farrakhan to shut the hell up about retaliation.  None of that happened.

The question becomes:  Why did the President take this course?  The unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin’s is being used by Barack Obama to create fear and anger within the black community.  He intends to use this fear to help bolster his re-election campaign. 

Is that cynical?  Sadly, it is.  Then again, why shouldn’t Obama be greeted with cynicism?  It was his administration that asserted that they would never let a crisis go to waste.  He himself asked the Russian dictator regime to give him some space until after the November election so that he could cave on missile defense.  Every time this President makes any move, he’s operating in the most mercenary politically expedient fashion possible.

But in this case, we’re all supposed to assign purely innocent motives to Barack Obama.  Of course.  After three years of watching this clown’s beer summitsnon-recess recess appointments and undeclared kinetic military actions that are not officially wars, everybody is supposed to just let this one slide.

Sorry if I’m not in the mood to play along with the dopey ’emperor’s new clothes’ drag act.

The larger point here is that Obama’s actions are the mark of a desperate man.  Just like David Dinkins clung to the life-raft of racial grievance to try to stay in office, Barack Obama is using the Trayvon Martin death as a way to energize black voters.  That’s the only card he has to play.

Consider an alternative:  If Obama had any kind of record to run on, would he have bothered to weigh in on the Trayvon Martin shooting?  Would he be selling Trayvon-inspired hoodies to fund raise for the 2012 campaign if he didn’t feel the need to tie himself to one side of the Martin case?

No, this is a sign of a candidate using the most shopworn hackneyed race card in the deck because he’s got no other trick to play.

UPDATE:  Linked by Smitty at The Other McCain.  Thanks!

UPDATE II:  Linked by The DaleyGator–those guys rule.  Thanks, homies.

UPDATE III:  Linked by the ever-cool Wyblog.  Muchas Gracias, Chris.

UPDATE IV:  Linked by the debonair Bob Belvedere.  Big ups, sir.

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

Green Jobs Ecological Fun Time Policy Show With Obama!

Posted by KingShamus on March 25, 2012

Ever wonder how St. Barry and his minions come up with energy policy in America?  Friend of BDKS Innominatus gives us a peak inside the deepest recesses of the White House brain trust.  Its not pretty.

pResident Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu are reclined on the White House porch.

[Obama] “OK. I’m about to unveil our new energy policy. But just in case the teleprompter hiccups, let’s go over it one more time.”

[Chu] “Alright. We start by announcing that all incandescent light bulbs will be immediately illegal, and all citizens have 24 hours to relinquish them to a government-approved disposal center. The incandescent, or ‘Edison’ bulbs must be replaced by CFL lamps. Which is extra cool, since we both own stock in CFL makers.”

[Obama, nodding] “Uh-huh, uh-huh.”

[Chu] “Then we have the jackboots begin inspecting homes for contraband Edison bulbs citizens may be trying to keep and/or hide. We’ll prioritize our search so that republican regions get searched first. Violators will be sent to starvation camps.”

[Obama] “Michelle will like that. Finally getting some victory in the War on Obesity and all that.”

Shelley The Sometime First Lady And Full-Time Amateur Dietician strikes again.

Read the rest at the link homies.  Innominatus, for the win.

Posted in Chuckles | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Republicans Might Be A-Strugglin’…

Posted by KingShamus on March 12, 2012

…but oh those Democrats aren’t doing any better.

First, let’s check in with The Other McCain, who reports on the GOP’s current quagmire, whoops, I meant the Alabama and Mississippi primaries happening tomorrow.

We know that late-deciding voters are highly suggestible and subject to bandwagon appeals to vote for the candidate they perceive to be the eventual winner. That factor favors Romney, and if it weren’t for the fact that Santorum is being hit with negative ads from every directions (including both the pro-Gingrich “super PAC” radio ads I first heard two weeks ago in Michigan, I’d be tempted to predict a third-place finish for Gingrich in both Mississippi and Alabama.

Because there is no way Newt can actually win the nomination, I’d say a vote for Gingrich is a vote for Romney, except that keeping Newt in the race might, by some unforeseen future turn of events, result in Romney being deprived of a majority of delegates going into the convention. Every delegate Romney doesn’t win — no matter whether the delegate is for Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul — increases the possibility of a non-Romney candidate getting the nomination in that political wet dream, the “brokered convention.”

Read the rest.

A brokered convention might be every reporter’s Christmas, New Year’s Eve and ten gallons of free scotch all wrapped up in one, but it doesn’t seem like it would be very good for the GOP cause. I’d say even the specter of a brokered convention–no matter how unlikely–is enough to dampen some spirits on the Republican side. The fear of a brokered convention forcing the party to put up a weak candidate against President Obama is too horrible for many GOPers to even contemplate.

All of this is music to the ears of Team Obamster, of course. Which is why they’re kicking so much ass in the polls.

The new Post-ABC poll shows that “46 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job; 50 percent disapprove. That’s a mirror image of his 50 to 46 positive split in early February. The downshift is particularly notable among independents — 57 percent of whom now disapprove — and among white people without college degrees, with disapproval among this group now topping approval by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, at 66 versus 28 percent.” . . . Obama also has a substantial problem with independents. The Post’s pollster tells me that Obama trails Mitt Romney 42-50 among independents; against Rick Santorum he trails by a smaller margin, 45 to 48 percent.

Because that’s what truly unbeatable political juggernauts do: Poll weakly to the dude running second in the GOP primaries. Underwater unfavorables in March of an election year? Obama’s got the Republicans right where he wants them.

Ya know what else is a sign of Obama’s awesome electoral might?

Translation: “Last election’s failed vice-presidential candidate said mean things about me–SEND MONEY QUICK!”

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Herman Cain, David Axelrod and the Chicago Way

Posted by KingShamus on November 11, 2011

Many right-of-center writers have made the argument that all the allegations against Herman Cain makes it politically hazardous for the GOP to nominate the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO.

I agree. It would be tough to defend Cain against numerous sexual harassment charges.  But are we really dealing with a candidate with a zipper problem?

Herman Cain​ has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.

So it’s curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod​.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O’Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley’s chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain’s personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain’s short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he’s alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O’Grady’s name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain’s personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we’ve suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of … Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod’s very building? Right again: Cain’s latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Read the rest.  Coulter lays out Team Barry’s long sordid history of dirty tactics.

Ann Coulter understands what David Axelrod knows on an instinctive level and what many conservatives sadly will never get through their thick skulls: “He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.”  All we have here is the latest iteration of the Obama-Alinsky strategy for dispatching inconvenient people who get in the way of Affirmative Action Barry’s political aspirations.  

So how have some righties reacted to what is obviously a hatchet-job orchestrated by the Windy City’s most notorious tub of bile?

Ummmm, not as well as one would hope.

Well, after Bialek, the allegations against Cain now have a face and a name. And again, they might be entirely false. But again, the allegations are succeeding in knocking the Cain campaign off of whatever game it once might have had, and any confidence that Herman Cain will be able to survive the Republican nomination contest–let alone a race against the veteran campaign squad that is bound and determined to get Barack Obama a second term in the White House–ought to be completely dissipated by now. Oh, I am sure that there remain some Cainiacs who hold out the last, desperate vestiges of hope that somehow, someway, their candidate will recover, Lazarus-like, capture the GOP nomination, and win the White House. But why should anyone put anymore stock into their tired, Baghdad Bobesque assurances that everything is all right, that the Cain campaign is walking on water (before turning it into wine), and that the former pizza executive has his opponents right where he wants them?

There may very well be more revelations about Cain’s behavior. This ride is not even close to being over yet. And I write that as someone who very much wants this ride to be over; we have serious economic policy, foreign policy, and national security issues to discuss in the run-up to the primaries, the caucuses, and the general election scheduled less than a year from today. Unfortunately, we are not talking about those issues, because of the soap opera that is Herman Cain’s Presidential campaign.

That last bit is the best.

Herman Cain is the target of a David Axelrod slime job.  The Obama re-election campaign is dredging up every half-assed allegation they can find against the GOP candidate.  They’re employing their ideological allies in the mainstream media to turn rumors and long settled complaints into front-page stories.

So of course, it’s Herman Cain’s fault that we’re not talking about the economic policy, foreign policy or national security issues.

Similarly, if it wasn’t for those pesky underage boys getting raped by Jerry Sandusky on Penn State football coach Joe Paterno’s watch, we could all focus on the Nittany Lion squad beating Nebraska on Saturday.  


It’s amazing.  Has Herman Cain spent the last 12 months bringing up any sex scandals involving Barack Obama?  Has Herman Cain spent his entire campaign playing footsie with the Barack Obama birther issue?  Has Herman Cain talked about Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn or Pastor Jeremiah Wright?   

In fact, Herman Cain has been pretty good about pushing his ideas out to the public.  All he’s done is talked about the serious issues that he cares about.  Now he finds himself embroiled in a mess created by Obama’s campaign team and aided by their buddies in the left-wing media.  What do some conservatives want to do?  Blame the victim and toss him overboard at the first opportunity. 

Why?  Because Gloria Allred thinks it’s a good idea?  Because David Gregory thinks Cain damages other Republicans?  Because the media is making it tough?  Is that the standard for judging candidates we’re going with now? 

The truth is, it’s Obama–not Cain–that doesn’t want to talk about issues.  Obama doesn’t want that because if the election comes down to a referendum on Barack’s record, he’ll lose.  If you’re concerned that we’re not talking about America’s various problems, let’s start by laying the blame where it belongs, which is at the feet of the President and his minions instead of the guy who’s been focused on ideas from the get-go.  

Here’s a question for all the Cain-haters who are using this moment of weakness to tear down the prominent GOP candidate:  What happens when it’s your favorite candidate getting hammered by a Democrat Party and MSM tag-team ‘scandal’?  Will you be there loudly clamoring for him or her to stand aside because the MSM says the person is no longer a viable candidate?  Or will you expect the rest of the conservative movement to circle the wagons and defend your personal favorite?

Here’s how I think it’ll go down: “Herman Cain wasn’t a real candidate.  He was only leading in national polls and gaining fundraising momentum, but he was never going to win.  But Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann/Paul is the real deal, so pretty please defend my preferred candidate against this latest unfounded media-driven scandal.”   

Yeah.  I’ll get right on that.

What these folks don’t seem to get is that the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) are not going to be satisfied just taking out Herman Cain.  Every scrap of innuendo, every half-hushed whisper, every stitch of gossip about all these candidates is being dug up by Obama’s opposition research team.  If we let them, once they’re done with Cain Team Bamster will move on to the next GOP candidate that poses a threat to Obama’s re-election.  They’ll float a story to their pals at the New York Times, MSNBC or Newsweek.  Within days, the court stenographers in the MSM will dutifully report yet another half-fabricated pack of nonsense, all under the ruse that they’re just ‘vetting the candidate’.

If a guy like Herman Cain can’t expect to get even a little support from other conservatives, why don’t we just throw in the fucking towel, give the Left what they really want and nominate Mitt Romney right now?  That way, when he loses in 2012, we can get ourselves all psyched up to nominate the next milquetoast establishmentarian compassionate conservative doucherocket in line for the 2016 race.

Look, if Herman Cain truly is a serial sexual creep, then it’s over for him.  But so far what evidence do we have here?  His accusers just aren’t credible.  Their stories don’t make sense.  We’re left with unsubstantiated crap that should be at the bottom of Jonathan Martin’s garbage can instead of on the front page of Politico.

Here’s the other thing:  Nobody is expecting Santorum supporters or Huntsman fans or anybody else to switch sides.  If you support another candidate, feel free to continue to do so.  But if you think you can build your dude up by using a left-wing hit job to tear Cain down, you’re just the guy feeding your buddies to an alligator in the hopes that the predator eats you last.

Posted in Domestic Happenings | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

The Enduring Genius of Occupy Wall Street, Part Deux

Posted by KingShamus on October 10, 2011

Bless you, Crack Emcee.  Bless you.

My friend No One Of Any Import (who is actually a very important blogger) is concerned about the OccupyEveryFuckingWhereWeWantEvenIfWeDoNotGetPermitsBecauseWeAreSoMorallySuperiorToEveryone. 

Then I got around to reading a post over at FilmLadd. (Drat. I can’t remember who led me to FilmLadd, so I can’t do the via link.) In that post, Mr. Ehlinger makes an unsettling point:

“My hunch is that these protests aren’t about accomplishing anything right now except to flex their muscles, test out the police, and see which supporters “they” (the White House) can count on.

In short: #OccupyWallStreet is a dry run for November 2012.”

Hmm. That sounds bad . . . and yet plausible.

First of all, No-1 and Ehlinger are exactly correct.  This is a dress rehearsal for Obambi’s re-election campaign.

And just look at the incoherent ideological clown costumes these dildotrons have elected to dress themselves in.

Occupy Wall Street and it’s various spin-offs represent the Huggies-fudging foot-stamping temper tantrum of America’s economic illiterates.  These are the type of people who actually take their Trotskyite college economics professor seriously instead of shotgunning a few beers and forgetting Hegels’ dialectic.  Then they have the nerve to get pissed off when they rack up a $100K in college debt for a degree they can’t get a job with because their Jesus-figure President has gleefully vaporized the economy.

Speaking of incoherence, the Occupy Wall Street crowd is really pissed off at big corporations.  Good thing Barack Obama isn’t in the pocket of those greedy multinational conglomerates or anything.

Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.

In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters. …

By the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.

Goldman Sachs contributed slightly over $1 million to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, compared with a little over $394,600 to the 2004 Bush campaign. Citigroup gave $736,771 to Obama in 2008, compared with $320,820 to Bush in 2004. Executives and others connected with the Swiss bank UBS AG donated $539,424 to Obama’s 2008 campaign, compared with $416,950 to Bush in 2004. And JP Morgan Chase gave Obama’s campaign $808,799 in 2008, but did not show up among Bush’s top donors in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Hey doe-eyed left-wing dreamers–You wanted President Hopey McChangenstein?  Try this on for size.

In short, Occupy Wall Street is the bastion of dupes, marks and suckers.

I have a suggestion.  Instead of worrying about what these wannabe Jacobins and never-will-be Guevaras will say, how’s about we let them talk?  Let them spew every wackadoo economic theory they want.  Allow them to indulge in every empty-headed rhetorical argument they want to.  Finally–and this will seem slightly heretical–I say we give them just enough room to engage in really stupid acts of public racism and idiocy.

Then, when they say and do stupid shit like the Lotion Man, we refute it   It’s not gonna be all that hard.  Making fun of bowel-stewing bigotry and doltish left-wing platitudes is always good.  Ya know what the best part is about shining a big ol’ zillion candlepower spotlight on these flaming jackasses?  The more they do, the more the rest of the country is going to hate them. 

Some people might get taken in by the OWS message.  Let’s be realistic, though.  Most people know that, even as bad as some companies can be, you still need them to create jobs.  In a nation where unemployment is at 9.1%, the majority of citizens in America understand that the last thing we need to do is go full retard socialist on businesses. 

We should not be too concerned that Occupy Wall Street is just the Left’s dry run for getting the Golfer-in-chief re-elected.  If this is the kind of campaign they want to run next year, we shouldn’t fear it.  We should welcome it with every fiber of our being.    

You wanna play the ‘pierced-septum 27 year old college sophomore living off of Mom ‘n Dad’s dime’ card, liberals?  Be our guest.  You Stalinists up for a game of ‘Scratch A Lefty, Find An Hate-Filled Anti-Semite’?  So are we.  Ya’all think you’re strong enough for a repeat of the sixties-era Days of Rage?  Let’s do this thing, hammer-heads.

If the Right has any brains in it’s collective skulls, they’ll use this moment of extreme left-wing windowlicking to highlight just how pretentious, mindless and destructive American liberalism has become.  They’ll then use every horrible progressive idea and action that comes out of the Occupy Wall Street movement and promptly club the lefty caucus over the head.  Lather, rinse, repeat for the next twelve months until all the polite well-mannered lefties disown the OWS crowd for fear of being tarred with the same humiliating brush.

I guess what I am trying to say is:  My fellow right-wing bitter clingers, go forth and mercilessly mock.

UPDATE:  Just as I was scratching out my mini-opus, the great RS McCain gives us a shining blaze pink example of the wacko lefty shit we can laugh at from the Occupy Wall Street conniption.

Here is the PDF of the Workers World Party announcement of their national conference(note the tributes to Che Guevara) and here, in its entirety, is their call to action:

Oct. 8 & 9

Abolish Capitalism,
Fight for Socialism

In the Spirit of Troy Davis:
“Dismantle this unjust system”



Stop right there.

‘In the spirit of Troy Davis’?  Troy Davis?  You mean the same Troy Davis that killed a cop in front of a bunch of eyewitnesses?  We should dismantle ‘the system’ in the spirit of a convicted cop-killer; is that what you’re saying, Worker’s World Party?

Well, being that you guys are Stalinists it only makes sense you’d want to change the American economic system through murderous violence.  Way to go with that playing exactly to type thing you got going there.

Posted in Domestic Happenings | Tagged: , , , , , | 14 Comments »

Lessons From The Debt Ceiling Fracas

Posted by KingShamus on August 3, 2011

If you listen to cultural leftists, all art should educate the masses about the proper role of government, the role of the citizen and the nature of public life. The debt ceiling play-acting/catastrophe-that-was-not-a-catastrophe was just the latest in a long line of stage-managed disasters thrust upon America by Obama and his Government Class hacks. Like any good social justice contrivance, we should try to gain some wisdom from the last few weeks of Washington DC’s Masterbate Theater.

First, does the debt ceiling deal actually…you know…help our nation’s credit rating?

But even if the deficit reduction mechanisms outlined by this weekend’s plan work, it won’t be nearly enough. In the long term, the biggest driver of the federal debt growth is health spending, and while the deal that’s now hurtling toward a vote might result in some tweaks to the payments the government makes to health care providers, it essentially does nothing to combat the unsustainable long-term growth of health spending. Some of the potential health reforms that might come out of a deficit commission package might be worth doing, but none represent the sort of fundamental reforms that will be necessary to head off the basic math of the budgepocalypse.

And so it’s no surprise to see that the credit raters at Moody’s are warning that neither of the deals that were being talked up by Republicans and Democrats last week—both of which ended up being fairly similar to the joint agreement we’re looking at now—would protect America from a potential credit rating downgrade.

It speaks to the basic insanity built into our government that something so convoluted and stupid as this debt dealing deal could be seen as a brave act by our elected representatives. We’re still probably going to be downgraded, but hey we managed to kick the can down the road a few more feet before the bad news happens, so that’s fun.

But at least the debt ceiling deal stops the possibility of raising taxes, right?

Former Bush econ advisor Keith Hennessey seems to think that the baseline will govern Committee action on tax rates but won’t affect their ability to raise taxes through other means, like closing loopholes. Assuming Tapper’s correct, though, not only will the Committee spend the next three months bickering about where to find savings, they’ll be bickering about what standard should be used to measure whether a new spending cut or revenue-raiser qualifies as a “savings” in the first place. Which means the GOP is caught between tax increases from the Super Committee, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts next year if the Committee does nothing about revenues, and sharp cuts to defense if Congress doesn’t enact the Committee’s recommendations.

Heads the tax-raisers win, tails the tax-cutters lose? How the hell does that make sense? The economy is growing at the same rate as global warming, ie, it’s not. So it makes perfect sense to make a deal where raising taxes in the middle of a double-dip recession is that much more likely to occur.

Corollary lesson from this: The Republicans are absolutely horrible negotiators.

Okay, that’s bad news there. However, the bipartisan vote showed that liberals could forgo name-calling the other side.

Joe Biden (via Karen Howes): The comments were made Monday during a heated conversation Biden had with liberal House members, like Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa., who were venting that Republicans got too much out of the debt ceiling deal unveiled the night before and “acted like terrorists,” a senior Democratic official told Fox News

William “Who?” Yeomans: It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the Househostage takers.” But they have now becomefull-blown terrorists.

Maureen Dowd (Quoted by Ed Driscoll): …there’s an untamed beast rampaging through American politics. But this beast does not seem blessed; rather it has loosed a kind of ugliness and wildness in the land.

Joe Klein: The Republicans have been willing to concede nothing. Their stand means higher interest rates, fewer jobs created and more destroyed, a general weakening of this country’s standing in the world. Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive, could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.

Chris Matthews: Why did [Obama] let this develop for six months…this drum roll of the Republicans saying, ‘We’ve got the baby. You don’t get the baby back unless you pay us?’ Why do you let the other side have the baby, to use kidnapping terms?

The Modern American Left: Just as polite, even-keeled and cordial as they were when they blaming the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and every conservative Republican that ever existed, exists now or ever will exist.

Speaking of Limbaugh, he’s been hitting a riff lately about moral victories that’s important in understanding the situation.

…there’s no such thing as a moral victory. I don’t know what he’s talking about. I don’t know what Senator McConnell’s talking about, but this moral victory stuff, I don’t go in for it. A moral victory is when somebody who is destined to lose gets closer to victory than they thought they ever would. But you still lost. A moral victory is a loss.

Read the rest.  It’s good.  But then, you knew that.

The thing is, I’m not sure if El Rushbo has this exactly right here. What if victory just wasn’t ever possible in the first place? The GOP controls the House of Reprazentin’ and not much else. Obama controls the Presidency, the Senate and the media. Once it became clear that the GOP wouldn’t shut down the government and wouldn’t challenge the media’s lies that August 2nd meant an automatic default, the game was pretty much over.

Instead of the moral victory metaphor, what I think we’re looking at is the hail mary play. The GOP’s position wasn’t as strong as the Democrats/Obama. The Left’s control over the Senate and the White House meant they had the upper hand, no matter what happened. By controlling the media, the Donkey-Punchers couldf get their message out far easier than Republicans. The GOP, down by a touchdown and backed deep into their own territory, could only hope to chuck the football into the endzone and pray that one of their guys caught it.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

So maybe the Republicans didn’t win this particular contest. The Democrats got the better of them. But they probably were going to anyway. Why? Because in the context of this particular match and with the Democrats’ basic advantages built into the situation, the GOP was the weaker team.

The Republicans lost this year’s Super Bowl. The funny thing about politics is that it’s very much like sports; there’s always another big game right around the bend. The GOP took some hits in this go-round. But Obama and the Democrats look far worse. The President has been revealed as the petulant man-child he really is, and the American public doesn’t like it. That’s not a good sign if Obama wants to be victorious in 2012.

The next election is the real championship game. Obama got a little reprieve here. But the fundamental truth of American life doesn’t change. The economy is still rancid, unemployment is still sky-high and there are more foreign-policy screw-ups and flare-ups to come.

The only hope for America lies in getting Obama back into private life. He’s just handed the GOP plenty of ammunition for the 2012 battle royale. Let’s hope the Republicans are smart enough to use it.

Posted in Domestic Happenings, Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

See What You’re Not Noticing? The Anti-War Protests Have Fizzled Out

Posted by KingShamus on July 27, 2011

Oh where, oh where have my passionate pacifist thumbsuckers gone? Oh where, oh where can they be?

Some 1,400 Americans have been arrested in anti-war demonstrations since 2009, reports John Hanrahan in Harvard’s Nieman Foundation Watchdog, but the national and local press almost never covers them, effectively silencing what Hanrahan argues should be a major voice in the national debate over the wars.

Really, now.  I wonder what changed in 2009.

Can Phillip Ewing, the writer of the piece, figure out this one-sided Rubik’s cube puzzle?

Apparently not, because he never even mentions the inauguration of Barack Obama in his article.

Wow, look at that.  Problem solved. 

Hey, Phil.  Got any more inscrutable head scratchers you want me to handle?

Yeah, believe it or else, water is wet.

I know, this is gonna shock you, but bears shit in the woods.

Don’t let this totally blow your fucking mind, but the Pope is…yes, that’s right…Catholic.

But wait, it gets better.

It may not be a “good” reason, in Hanrahan’s eyes, but there’s probably one big reason for the absence of antiwar coverage in the mainstream press. Editors are sensitive to charges they don’t “support the troops” – which isn’t their job as journalists to begin with, but the criticism still stings if your newspaper or TV station is perceived that way. The antiwar movement has tried for years to dispel the impression that it’s anti-soldier – its signs now say “support the troops – bring them home,” and Michael Moore wrote a whole book, “Will They Ever Trust Us Again?” in which he tried to take up the mantle of troops fighting in Iraq. Etc.


I take it Mr. Ewing was born yesterday, because he must not have been around for the war coverage from 2001-2008.

Think back to all the grim milestones.  Ponder the fawning press coverage of lunatics like Cindy Sheehan. Look to the era of constantly overcounting the number of people at antiwar protests.  Is anything like that frenzied mainstream media reportage happening now?

Better still, the idea that news editors are scared to piss off people if they don’t support the troops is preposterous.  The media is left-wing.  They’re part and parcel of the liberal caucus in America.  They might have slightly fewer body piercings than your average Democrat Underground mouthbreather, but c’mon now.  The MSM spent the Bush years jacking off to every negative story they could dig up, all in the cause of undermining Dubya’s political fortunes.


Let me just spell it out here.  There are committed passionate peaceniks out there.  They will walk the walk, organize their protests and shout every cornball slogan you’ve ever tried to un-hear.  They will of course never be covered by anybody in the national press until a Republican is elected president and the anti-war protestors can be politically useful again.  That’s all there is to it.

I snagged this link from my twitter homie Coondawg68.  Thanks as always for hooking a blogger up.

Posted in Domestic Happenings | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

Obama’s Emotional Press Conference Reconsidered

Posted by KingShamus on July 25, 2011

I know a lot of people have commented on Obama’s press conference from last week.  But I had to come back to it for a moment.  If you need a reminder or if you just like to watch the pResident get pissy, take another look.

Non-answer answers, punching the shit out of strawmen, outright lies, rambling dissertations masquerading as serious policy points, a heavy intellect-free reliance on focus-grouped rhetoric; all the zany hi-jinks we’ve come to know and love about Barack Obama are on full display here.

What we have almost never seen before from this President is the angry emotionalism he put into last week’s press briefing.  Think about how odd that is.  There have been several serious terrorist attacks on the world stage during Obama’s tenure.  Iran, Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia and Libya are just a few places that have been rocked by serious political instability.  The Greek, Irish, Spanish and Portuguese debt crises have threatened to topple parts of the established global economic order.  Dealing with potential hotspots like Russia, China, Venezuela, Mexico and North Korea has to be frustrating for our commander-in-chief from time to time.  In the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, it became clear that elements of the Pakistani government most likely knew that the al-Qaeda leader was hiding in plain sight in Abbotabad.   How has Obama reacted to those understandably troubling and sometimes infuriating situations?  Almost in every instance, he’s been so cool he’s barely gotten above room temperature.  No anger there.

Forget about foreign stuff.  I get how Presidents are loath to show a lot of emotions to the world during times of trouble.  Maybe Barry was putting on a brave face for international consumption.  Let’s look at the domestic sphere.  Remember when Barack Obama took British Petroleum to the woodshed for their hapless handling of the Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico oil spill?  Me neither.  Do you recall how the President was so fired up when it turned out that the Fort Hood Shootings were the work of an Islamic radical with ties to an al-Qaeda imam?  Nope, not ringing a bell. 

In the 2+ years that President Barack Obama has been leading America, the only time that guy flashes his fangs is when the Republicans deny him something he wants.  The only situation that calls for St. Barry The Lightbringer to drop his divinely inspired professorial countenance is when some part of the conservative or traditionalist faction in American life (“The Cambridge police acted stupidly…”) upsets his apple cart.  It is an interesting insight into the mind of Obama that the people that make him the most annoyed are his fellow citizens.

Not Mahmoud Ahmadinijad.  Not Mexican drug gangs.  Not homegrown terrorists.  Not Dmitry Medvedev.  Not former BP CEO Tony Hayward.  Not the Pakistani ISI.  Not Kim Jong-Il.  No, it’s the GOP that really gets under Obama’s skin.  Conservatives are Barack’s public enemy #1.

Posted in Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Gunwalker Gets Good

Posted by KingShamus on July 19, 2011

Did I say good?  I meant gooder.

The most impressive revelations are of data that Acting Director Melson gave them. ATF was ready to cooperate until it was gagged by the Deputy Attorney General. They informed the Deputy AG that they had documents that contradicted the “official story” Justice was giving out. A memo describing an important meeting — held to convince a cooperating gun dealer who was getting worried about allowing all these suspicious gun buys — was actually written over a year later, after the controversy broke. Melson says there is a memo that is a “smoking gun,” which Justice is still refusing to reveal to the Committee.

That sounds rather juicy.

Why would the Deputy AG try to muzzle the ATF if everything was hunky-dory?

Oh right:  If the DOJ dudes keep Melson & Co. from talking, maybe they can still get their gun control dreams slammed into law during Obamster’s second term. 

I once thought that theory was kinda out there.  Now that there’s been all this stonewalling and bullshit, that’s the only theory that makes sense.

By the way, I know the Mexican government has two basic functions–shipping their troublesome citizens to our country and taking generous bribes from various drug gang factions–but even a spectacularly corrupt sleazeocrat like Mexican President Felipe Calderon has got to be pissed off when he finds out his BFF Barack Obama has been letting scads of guns go willy-nilly into the hands of narco-terrorist scourge.

If Mexico wasn’t a completely failed state with an armed forces that is utterly outclassed by our military, Operation Gunwalker would probably have garnered an aggressive response by the Mexicans against us.  Imagine if we didn’t have the best army on the planet.  Obama’s cheap little stunt, which again was implemented to simply score political points in order to win a domestic partisan argument, could’ve gotten us into a very hot war with our next door neighbor. 

That’s how bad this is.  And Obama and his toadie Eric Holder totally own this epic fail.

Enough is enough.  Eric Holder must go.

Hell, Barack Obama must go as well.  Since we can’t kick his lame ass out till 2012, we may as well start with one of President Pretty Pony’s more egregious prick-nosed socialist hacks first.

I snagged the link from Instapundit.  Grazie.

Posted in Politicians behaving badly | Tagged: , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,373 other followers