More White House Idiocy On The "Jobs" Report, via ABC's Jake Tapper

ABC News's Jake Tapper is becoming one of my favorite White House reporters, and has been working on that status for months now. Much like the CBS News report on the same "stimulus" update, ABC is now calculating that if the White House numbers are correct, then it would have cost us about $160,000 per job! The White House says that's "calculator abuse," which is precisely the sort of answer you'd expect from a government run by a bunch of 5 year olds:

Posting its results late this afternoon at Recovery.gov, the White House claimed 640,329 jobs have been created or saved because of the $159 billion in stimulus funds allocated as of Sept. 30.

Officials acknowledged the numbers were not exact, saying that states and localities that reported the numbers have made mistakes.

Ed DeSeve, senior advisor to the president for Recovery Act implementation, said he'd been "scrubbing" the job estimates so much since they came it at the beginning of the month that he now has "dishpan hands and my fingers are worn to the nub."

White House officials heralded the unparalleled transparency in reporting job numbers to the public, but acknowledged there is no consistent standard across states or localities, or among federal agencies giving out stimulus funds, in differentiating between a “saved” job and a “created” job.

The White House argues that the actual job number is actually larger than 640,000 -- closer to 1 million jobs when one factors in stimulus jobs added in October and, more importantly, jobs created indirectly, such as "the waitress who's still on the job," Vice President Biden said today.

So let's see. Assuming their number is right -- 160 billion divided by 1 million. Does that mean the stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000 per job?

Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to the vice president, called that "calculator abuse."

That's just beautiful. There is "no consistent standard across states or localities, or among federal agencies" for deciding what actually constitutes a saved or created job? What kind of shim-sham operation is this? Is this the government at work, or is it a bad episode of Animaniacs? Perhaps that's a distinction without a difference.

Awesome!: CBS News Goes Nuclear On White House "Jobs" Report; "Not worth the paper it's printed on."

After months of demonizing Fox News Channel, which finally culminated in an outright attempt to ban the network from interviewing administration officials, it appears the Obama White House may now hav to set their sites on another much less likely foe: CBS News. That's right. The Tiffany Network, better known for its laugh-out-loud hillarious "fake, but true" standard of journalism during the 2004 President Bush Guardgate scandal, is attempting to earn back some of its credibility by shedding some light on the past incompetence of the Obama administration in reporting how many jobs their "stimulus" bill has "saved or created".

There's something about thinking of press secretary Robert Gibbs's reaction to this report that really warms the soul. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey wonders: "So when does CBS start getting the Fox treatment from Robert Gibbs and Velerie Jarrett?"

One Solid Gold Coward: Obama Dithers on Afghanistan; Questions Linger About Uncooperative Iran

Earlier this month I reported on President Obama's "ultimatum" to Iran regarding their nuclear weapons. Of course, the very next day I was forced to write another article criticizing the administration's lack of resolve, backing off on their "ultimatum" after less than just 24 hours. And now, according the LA Times, Iran has completely blown off the essentials of the agreement altogether:

The proposal would have depleted Iran's stockpile of nuclear fuel below the threshold necessary for making a single nuclear bomb, possibly creating diplomatic breathing room for a broader agreement between Tehran and those worried about its atomic research program.

But according to the diplomat, Iran wants to send its uranium abroad in smaller batches over an undetermined stretch of time rather than the lump transfer by year's end outlined under the proposal offered by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such a change would allow Iran to quickly replenish its stock.

Why doesn't the LA Times (and, for that matter, the American diplomat who called Iran's response "inadequate") just come out say what really happened: Iran has essentially outright declined our offer, as their alternative proposal completely defeats the stated purpose of the original deal. The question remains, though, will Barack Obama finally concede that when it comes to Iran you gotta play hardball. Most likely not, especially if his reaction to this menace is anything like his complete incompetence when it comes to managing his "war of necessity", the war in Afghanistan.

On October 3, I wrote about Barry's inaction on the Afghanistan question. At that time, it had already been over a month since the president had received the recommendations from his generals on the ground. As of today, he still has not offered any direction, and now even the Europeans are growing impatient with his indecision. From the German news magazine der Spiegel :

For once, this hesitation cannot be attributed to widespread war fatigue in Europe. The mission in Afghanistan is seen as a toxic issue in all Western nations, and every government that has provided troops has come under sharp criticism at home. What the US’s NATO allies now find far more irritating is US President Barack Obama’s silence on the issue.

The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US’s most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the “AfPak” region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate. …

Whether it means withdrawal or a troop buildup, NATO expects Obama to make a decision. So far, no one knows which direction he favors. Even experienced Washington insiders have encountered a wall of silence at the White House, leading Europeans to question whether Washington even believes in its war anymore.

Funny that the Europeans are demanding an answer--any answer--from Obama on the Afghanistan issue. In fact, what they are really wondering is why it is taking Obama so long to retreat after they were so nice to preemptively give him that shiny new Nobel Peace Prize.

It is simply an undeniable fact that our president is in over his head and has no idea - none - how to deal with this situation or a host of others. Confronted with a reality that is far different than his "hope" and "change" message, he is completely hopeless. The brave new leader the American people put their faith in has turned out to be a paper tiger, indeed. As the world grows more and more dangerous, and more and more troops die in the mountains of Afghanistan, our president is taking his good time in making any decision concerning their struggle, ignoring his generals' pleas for reinforcements while thinking of more "solutions" that only undermine our mission and needlessly cost us more American lives.

And so this is the price we pay for placing our trust in pretty words and lofty rhetoric. The One who was supposed to usher in a new era of international goodwill towards America is only earning us the confusion of our friends and the emboldening of our enemies.

Obama Golfs While America Burns

President Obama, having won his election and a new, shiny Nobel Peace Prize, has apparently deemed himself eligible for a little R&R. Or, perhaps not a little. A lot, actually. After nine months in office, President O (it looks like a zero, get it?) has tied President George W. Bush for "number of rounds of golf played in office". 24 rounds in case, you were wondering. It took President Bush 2 years and 10 months to put in that much time on the links.

Call me crazy, but am I the only one who remembers all of the liberal bellyaching over how much time spent at Camp David, a fully outfitted presidential retreat, often accompanied by aides and advisors? I'm not a golfer, but I don't believe golf courses typically lend themselves to handeling national crises. Now again, frankly I don't care how many times the president plays golf. The only point here is that liberals acted as if Bush were never working on anything, only enjoying the benefits of being the most powerful man in the world.

Aw shucks mister! Those polls don't mean nothing

Peggy Noonan had a great OpEd in today's issue of the Wall Street Journal entitled It's His Rubble Now. In it she describes the huge disparity in approval ratings and overall demeanor between George W. Bush post 9/11 and Barack Obama post 01/20/09.

In the aftermath of 9/11 Bush didn't stand before the American people making excuses. Nor did he stand around pointing fingers at previous administrations, scrambling to find a scapegoat. He stood before international media and vowed to keep America safe and he did just that for the remainder of his administration.

Comparatively, Obama seems content to stand around blaming everyone and anyone within his vicinity for the status-quo. Noonan writes:

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he's busy with a "mop," "cleaning up somebody else's mess," and he doesn't enjoy "somebody sitting back and saying, 'You're not holding the mop the right way.'" Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking "Why haven't you solved world hunger yet?" His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive.

We know that it's politically unpersuasive, the best indicator of this is every approval rating poll within the last few months. Noonan continues:"The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up."

The American people were fooled into believe that this was the man who could turn our economy around and restore our international street cred and they are quickly realizing that he is incapable of doing so. Not only is he incapable of doing so, but he is unwilling to do so by continuously blaming the previous administration and the whole of the Republican party for his shortcomings.

Wake up America. We did this to ourselves...remember that come 2010 and 2012.

White House Attempts to Ban Fox News From Interviewing "Pay Czar"; Major News Groups Rebel

In his on going effort to demonize Fox News Channel, President Barack Obama and his advisers attempted one of the most egregious abuses of executive power in it's short history - and only one of the firsts, no doubt - by attempting to ban Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett from interviewing one of the mysterious White House "czars". The White House's "war on Fox News" has even involved senior advisers telling other media outlets that they "ought not treat" Fox as a legitimate news organization:

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton advisor, is one of countless former Democrat aides an officials now working for "legitimate" news organizations as journalists. Chris Matthews of MSNBC is another.

But frankly, the more important part of this story is how the other media outlets, as explained in the clip at the bottom of this entry, managed to salvage their own integrity by refusing to go along with any interview if Fox News was not included. This, by anyone's measure, is a complete repudiation by the major news organizations of the White House's claim that Fox News should be ostracised. And this rebellion by the MSM could be a turning point in my view from the warm reception the media has given the president so far. Just yesterday, ABC News's Jake Tapper, questioned the appropriateness of the White House's eagerness to "decide that a news organization is not one". He even calls Fox News one of "our sister organizations":

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

Is this for real? Where is the outrage from the liberal consortium in this country regarding this most blatant assault on such a fundamental part of any democratic society - a free, open and adversarial press?

This attempt at censorship by the White House proves what I have said over and over again; this administration is accustomed to a campaign in which they were fawned over by the media and the people at large. Now, unable to adjust from "campaign mode" to "leader mode", they have been reduced to a bunch of crying pantywaists who can no more lead this nation than Chris Matthews can do a sit up. It's amateur hour at the White House, and we've all got front row seats.

Pathetic.

D-Day Veteran Philip Spooner Speaks Up For Gay Marriage

Seriously one of the most awesome videos I have ever seen.

Citing the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau, he says: “I have seen with my own eyes the consequence of a caste system and of making some people less than others or second class. Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone.

“It’s what this country was started for.”

Hot Air's Allahpundit Should Have Faith In The Numbers...and so should you.

The election of Barack Hussein Obama may well go down in history as one of the most bizarre events of the 21st Century. It will, at least, if his presidency continues on as it has throughout his first year so far. I must confess, I was very confused by his election last November. I simply could not believe that people actually believed what he believed. And it turns out I was right. In fact, less than half of Americans believe what the president believes on "important issues":

WASHINGTON (CNN) – For the first time since he took over in the White House, Americans don't see eye to eye with President Barack Obama on the important issues, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey does indicate that a majority approve of how Obama's handling his duties as president.

According to the poll, which was released Tuesday, 48 percent of people questioned say that they agree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them, with 51 percent saying no. That's a switch from April, when 57 percent said they agreed with the president on important issues, with 41 percent disagreeing.

While I feel a little comforted with the fact that Americans "no longer" see eye to eye with the president, can anyone explain how a nation in which less than half of the people agree with the man on top can still enjoy a 55% approval rating? It's mind boggling to me that people who disagree with the president on "important issues" still approve of his handling of the job. Is it that they find his enormous ears to be endearing? Is it his toothy (very toothy) smile? Do they think it's cute when he kinda sorta almost starts talking ebonics when he's talking to a mostly black audience? I don't get it. Anyone? (For my real explanation, continue reading)

Allahpundit at Hot Air(my favorite blog) is reporting that it's not just CNN finding these grim "single issue" numbers for Obama, either. Rasmussen and Harris are finding precisely the same thing. On virtually every single issue the voters do not support the president. But, like me, Allahpundit is stomped by the overall approval numbers. He thinks something is fishy, using the approval numbers on Iraq as an example:

Actually, I’m more interested in the numbers on Iraq. Why would the GOP lead by 19 points? And why would that lead have almost doubled in just the past month? Iraq’s been completely off the media radar screen. Either the respondents are so disillusioned with Hopenchange that they’re now reflexively answering each question with the equivalent of a middle finger to The One or there’s something fishy going on here.

But not as fishy as this. From the Harris Interactive poll, among a sample of 2,293 adults. You’ve got to be kidding:

On 12 separate issues, the number willing to say he’s doing “pretty good” tops out at 41 percent? CNN has his job approval at 55 percent; even assuming that’s a bit skewed, it can’t be much worse than 50. In which case, how you do get from a high of 41 on individual issues to overall approval of 50? My inner pessimist says things can’t be this rosy for the GOP. Can they?

Well, yes, Allahpundit, they can. Personally, I am more inclined to believe the issue by issue numbers for this reason: While issues like Iraq have not been pushed in the media very much, the accusations of racism against anyone who disagrees with or questions the president's policies has been. It is this bloggers opinion that the voters are fooling themselves into saying "I support the president, I only disagree with him on this one issue...and this one...and this one, and this one, and this one. But other than those he's doing a great job, so I'm not racist, see!" If you care to be more optimistic about the voters' motives behind weird numbers (and I'm not) then you could even say that Americans are anxious to see our first black president do well, and therefor give him high marks overall, but low marks when it comes down to the nitty gritty specifics.

But if Allahpundit is really interested in seeing if the GOP can really be doing so well (in every last poll issued) then let's look at where the money is going. WSJ is reporting that the RNC has outraised the DNC for the last two months, due largely to a "rise in small donors". That means "average Americans", the same people polled who gave us the odd skew in approval numbers.

So don't worry Allahpundit. Nothing fishy going on. We really are doing that well!

Less Than A Year And Already Less Popular Than Hillary. Ouch.

"Why do people hate you?" asked little Terrance to the President of the United States. His answer is the most interesting part of the conversation, however:

Well, now, first of all. I did get elected president, so not everyone hates me, nah. I got a whole lotta votes. I wanna make sure everyone understands.

Here, once again, we witness the president dismissing honest disagreement and opposition to his ultra left wing government takeover to being "poke(d) a little bit" so that we can "keep him on his toes". Or, as he more succinctly puts it, it's just "politics".

Let us, for a moment, study the president's assertion that not everyone hates him. After all, he did get a whole lotta votes! The latest Fox News Poll show less than 50% of Americans would vote for Barack Obama if an election were held today. As a matter of fact, its not even close to 50%. It's 43%. Dayum, Barry. Dayum.

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama's job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. That's down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president -- and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Well, hey, I mean 43% isn't that bad. Come to think of it, that's just about the same share of the vote that Bill Clinton won in 1992. Of course, that was back before Democrats pretended to care that sometimes president's get elected without a "clear majority".

Anyway. That FNC Poll is not the only problem Mr. Obama is facing in the polls. Despite her declaration that she will not run again, no one can write off the political calculation of one Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State and former Democrat primary rival. I can't help but see her as miserable every time she is on television. We would be kidding ourselves to believe she would never consider another primary challenge to her new boss, especially given that Gallup now shows that she is more popular than the president himself, a fact that must have her licking her chops in anticipation of an inner-party "Draft Hillary" moment:

Gallup points out that in this latest survey, Hillary Clinton is now more popular than Obama. Sixty-two percent say they have a favorable impression of the Secretary of State, versus 34 percent who have an unfavorable impression. That's a big change from the height of the battle for the Democratic nomination last year; in February 2008, just 48 percent had a favorable impression of Mrs. Clinton, versus 49 percent who had an unfavorable impression.

Frankly, the only thing more fun than watching those two duke it out again would be the laugh-out-loud hillarious spectacle the entire Democrat party would put on as they simultaneously try to cast Republicans as racist for opposing the reelection of the first black president while nursing a large faction within their own party that doesn't want him there, either. Why, it would be like conservative political porn!

Obama continues to cater to illegal immigrants

And we thought McCain was bad....

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, known through out the country for his no nonsense stance on illegal immigrants in his home county, has been reprimanded by the Obama Administration.

Sheriff Arpaio (better know simply as Sheriff Joe) and his deputies were authorized by the federal government to detain, question and verify the status of suspected illegal immigrants in the area. After receiving a litany of complaints from liberals various individuals, the Obama Administration revoked his ability to make immigration arrests. Sheriff Joe responded by stating that he would continue to make arrests and drive those suspect individuals to the border if federal officers refused to make the arrest: "I'll take a little trip to the border and turn them over to the border," he said.

Paco Fabian, spokesman for America's Voice, was pleased with the Obama Administration and had the following to say: "The federal government is lending its full force and legitimacy to a rogue cop certain to go down in history as a serial violator of civil rights and an enemy of the Latino community." The vast majority of individuals Sheriff Joe dealt with were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and thus had no civil liberties or rights. Those individuals who he did question who were American citizens ceded certain of their liberties to the federal government under the Social Contract in order to secure a safe nation and indefinitely ensure their rights. This has been the case since the inception of our nation, just because you throw the PC term of "racial profiling" in the mix doesn't change the facts.

Side note: It's not racial profiling. Being Hispanic or Mexican isn't a race, it's an ethnicity people.

The article further sympathizes with illegal immigrants by stating: "...But critics of the programme say it wastes police resources needed to fight street crime, promotes racial profiling of Hispanics, targets peaceful workers, breaks up families and breeds distrust of police among immigrants, who become afraid to report crime for fear they will be asked for immigration papers."

The last time I checked it was a crime to be in the country illegally. Moreover, it is the members of the Mexican mafia that are the cause of the violence and street crimes in the vast majority of these border towns in Texas and California.

Sheriff Joe's actions are not targeting peaceful workers,they are targeting individuals who are illegally in the country. Irrespective of how you try to spin it to invoke sympathy from the American people, this is what's happening. Same goes for the remainder of that quote...I'm sorry, but individuals who are here legally do not fear being asked for immigration papers. Who is scared of handing over documents? Is that some strange phobia that has taken over the hispanic community that I'm not privy to? And individuals who do not report crimes to the police for whatever reason, lack the moral character to be citizens of this country.

I had a pretty good understanding of immigration very young age having been born in Juarez, Mexico. I knew that there was a difference between LPR status and citizenship and understood the responsibilities, rights and obligations that came with the latter...as should they.

Is It "Game Over" For Harry Reid?

The Tusk has mentioned his prospects in this race before, but now it looks like it's all over for Senate Democrat Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. Polls are consistently showing him lagging behind his two potential competitors, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. But the surest factor indicating his assured retirement is this:

Though respondents can't decide whom they want to win the Republican primary, they're certain they don't support Reid, the Senate majority leader seeking his fifth consecutive six-year term.

In one general election scenario, 49 percent of respondents picked Lowden and 39 percent chose Reid. In another, 48 percent picked Tarkanian to 43 percent for Reid. That poll, which surveyed 500 voters Tuesday through Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points...

...For months the perception of Reid among voters has been fixed, with near 100 percent name recognition and a high number of voters viewing him unfavorably. In the latest poll, 38 percent of voters viewed Reid favorably compared to 50 percent with an unfavorable view.

50 percent unfavorable rating for the one of the most powerful Democrats in America? The most interesting part is that no one really cares who runs against him, the prevailing attitude seeming to be simply "get him the hell outta here." It's about time.

Oddly enough, this particular poll is a bit better than last month's Rasmussen Reports survey (my favorite, and the most reliable pollster out there) which showed Reid with a 54% unfavorable rating, including 42% who have a "very unfavorable" view of the Senate's leading liberal. My money is on the Rasmussen poll, given his accuracy in the past. This is good news for Nevada.

DNC Ad: "Healthcare bill is bipartisan. No, wait. Nevermind."

You really have to hand it to Barack Obama and his crew over at the Democratic National Committee for their abiity to turn virtually nothing into a whole lot of something. In his weekly address, President Obama touted what he seems to think is a wave of bipartisanship over his healthcare reform bill. It doesn't exist, of course, but that didn't stop the DNC from releasing an ad just hours after the address. Why, it almost seems like a concerted effort by liberals to fool the American people into thinking Republicans (the good guys) are now for this heaping pile of bile. The nerve!
That's right! This dramatic government takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy is so bipartisan that two former Republican senators, one liberal Republican governor and a former Bush cabinet official like it! Well, actually, Bill Frist immediately clarified his remarks once Democrats started using his "I'd probably vote for it" comment. He amended his response 5 days ago, but that didn't stop Democrats from thuggishly quoting him in their ad:

“There are five bills on the floor now -- none of them are perfect. People try to put words in my mouth saying ‘You support the Baucus bill.’ I don’t support the Baucus bill as written today,” Frist told ABC News Radio on Monday. "It’s going to cost way too much and we’re not going to get all the uninsured into the marketplace .... There’s some egregious things in there that will cost all the taxpayers too much money and not give them anything.”

Nothing about this bill is bipartisan. The ad all but admits that by quoting just four Republicans, claiming bipartisan support, then admitting they don't have enough bipartisan support to pass the bill. It's the ultimate flip flop and all within a 30 second ad.

And don't forget, Democrats shouldn't need a single Republican to vote for this bill. They have super-majorities in both chambers of Congress. The fact that they are resorting to ads like these means one thing: they don't even have all of their own ducks lined up to vote for this thing. Not even close. I'm reminded of Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele's comments on this very point. "Up or down, baby!"

Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. No seriously, stop laughing, he really did. Back in February, twelve days after being sworn in as president, someone thought Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. So, they nominated him. Apparently, 204 other people and organizations were also nominated but couldn't hold a candle to America's first black president, whose crowning achievement thus far is to be America's first black president. Well, that and he's not George W. Bush, which apparently gets you lots of points judging by two of last several choices:

This makes three times, incidentally, in just seven years that the committee’s turned the Peace Prize into a “f*** Bush” award by bestowing it on a liberal American Democrat. The Goracle got it in 2007 and Carter received it in 2002, making today’s announcement yet one more reason to consider The One his presidential heir.

Exit question: There was no one more deserving? Morgan Tsvangirai, Mugabe’s nemesis in Zimbabwe? Iranian protesters? Hello?

If you think you were surprised, guess again? Apparently no one in the White House could believe it either, one of them wondering out loud, "It's not April 1, is it?" No, it's not April 1, and this isn't some fucked up dream, either. What used to be one of the most prestigious committees in the world just awarded what used to be one of the world's most prestigious medals to an amateur, unaccomplished president in the first year of his first term. Only two other sitting U.S. presidents have ever recieved the award, and this year's winner tarnishes the name of one of my favorites, Theodore Roosevelt:

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president -- and the first in 90 years -- to win the coveted peace prize. His predecessors won during their second White House terms, however, and after significant diplomatic achievements. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treaty of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.

These two men had meaningful and substantive policy accomplishments, were true statesmen and had regular sized human ears. Meanwhile, the Democrat National Committee is comparing anyone who thinks he doesn't deserve it to terrorists.

This entire ordeal makes this blogger wonder if Barack Obama has ever actually earned anything. He coasted into the White House without ever having muttered a single coherent thought. It was a campaign of anti-Bushisms sprinkled with some Hope and Change rhetoric, and he's been able to deliver on precisely 0% of it. He won his U.S. Senate seat because his opponent's divorce papers were unsealed and revealed some embarrassing things about the candidate. Coincidentally, that's also how he won his state senate seat in Illinois. His is a life not marked by hard work and sacrifice, and certainly not by working for peace, but it is a life marked by charming his way into positions of influence and power, and then squandering it away for lack of a basic ability to lead.

Never before has such a low standard been set for achieving such a prestigious honor. He won this prize precisely the same way he won the presidency. He didn't do anything. He talked about doing something, hoping his giant smile would keep anyone from noticing that he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Now that Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama have joined the ranks of those previously honored designees, it can be safely said that the Nobel Peace Prize means very little now. Very little, indeed.

Disgraceful.

UPDATE: "Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall" as prize was announced.

UPDATE: Blogosphere united in utter disbelief. "This is insane."

UPDATE: Time online has field day teasing Obama over his award.

The Other War

Chris Burgard of Big Hollywood Blog has a great entry out today entitled the War on Propaganda. Burgard writes: "From Sun Tzu to Psy Ops, propaganda has won wars, toppled cultures and changed civilizations. As a self-identified enlightened and educated culture, we thought ourselves beyond such base manipulation. We were wrong."

Burgard continues "On Sept. 20, 2009, President Obama stated that he would look into bailouts for print newspapers because he is concerned that blogs will take over the world and be a threat to democracy. Imagine that: the President of the United States is concerned free speech may be a threat to democracy. Is anybody paying attention?"

The answer is: yes. The conservatives are payin attention, as per usual. The left, however, does not seem to care as they have traditionally been the party that pisses over those...what's the word again?...Rights. RE: The Supreme Court reviewing a case that would further limit our Second Amendent Right. I'm eager to see how that wise Latina woman is going to objectively handle the case.

"President Obama and his team are convinced that they are smarter than the average American citizen. They don’t just say Middle Americans “cling to their Bibles and guns out of fear,” they truly believe it. This administration has banked on using fear to push stimulus packages, carbon taxes, bailouts and health care reform. That is their Waterloo.
Fear is not at the core of the American psyche; independence and patriotism are. And when enough Americans step back, take a breath and realize the extent of this manipulation, they awaken with a determination and that is truly frightening to those that would attempt to govern from the shadows.The fear is now on the other foot" Burgard states.

And so, Burgard concludes: "Apathy can no longer be counted on as a tool for those who would seek to control the populace and erode the Constitution. In this “Constitution Revolution,” the American people are not coming after you with guns or explosives; they are armed with truth, a desire for transparency, a desire for enlightened and informed public discourse, a demand for civic responsibility and a call to politicians to honor their oaths to the US Constitution."

Overall great piece and a fantastic way to start the day combating the liberal agenda.

Attention John McCain: It's Our Party, Too, And, frankly, we don't like you that much.

Not quite satisfied with having run one of the worst presidential campaigns ever, Senator John McCain is now seeking to reshape the Republican Party in his on image. In other words, to make it a "centrist" party, or as I prefer to call it, "a group of dithering cowards who wet themselves at the slightest sign of liberal hostility".

It’s all part of an approach that is at odds with most other recent failed presidential nominees, whose immediate response to defeat was to retreat from the electoral arena. But those familiar with McCain’s thinking say he has expressed serious concern about the direction of the party and is actively seeking out and supporting candidates who can broaden the party’s reach.

In McCain’s case, that means backing conservative pragmatists and moderates.

Bitter much? That is exactly what this really boils down to. John McCain, after failing to win over the party faithful (also known as "conservatives") is now upset and seeking to make the party as inpalatable to them as his own campaign was. Remember when Ann Coulter threatened to support Hillary Clinton if McCain won the nomination?
Or the cover of Newsweek magazine with conservative big shots staring down on McCain with the headline "There Will Be Blood"? The fact is that Republicans were as enthusiastic about John McCain as Democrats were about John Kerry in 2004. Which is to say, many of us faked it and many more of us didn't even bother.

Liberals within the Republican Party need to make way for a new generation of Republican leadership that does not sacrifice our conservative principles just to be the flavor of the week in the media.

We are the party that believes that a small government is better than a big one; that the unborn have rights; that "the people" have a right to gun ownership; that freedom is for every human being, not just a civilized few; that America is a unique place with a unique role; that taxes should be lower, not higher; that "you cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer"; that the rich are no more guilty than the poor are innocent; that people seeking an American way of life should do so legally; and that there is more good in this country than on any other place on Earth. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. We are the Grand Old Party and on these issues THERE CAN BE. NO. COMPROMISE.

Move over, John McCain. Your fifteen minutes are up.

Correction: Barack Obama Has No Testicles; I'm Mad As Hell And You Should Be Too

This is The Tusk's first correction since we began publication about two months ago. But I'm not embarrassed about it. Yesterday I stunned Tusk readers everywhere by admitting that, despite our previously held beliefs that the president has no balls, he just had "little" ones. But we can all breathe a sigh of relief tonight. Our initial assessment, made after careful observation during the campaign, is true. The president is indeed suffering from a lack of bulk in the male region generally used for reproduction, a condition medical officials call "having no balls to speak of. At all. Period." I believe you can find that in the medical literature between the entries for "hallitosis" and "herpes".

Hot Air is all over this, and I encourage you to read their stuff, but here is a brief synopses of events. Yesterday, at around 3:00pm Barack Obambi issued an ultimatum to Iran: Let inspectors in within two weeks, or else!:

President Obama delivered an ultimatum to Iran Thursday, saying it must allow international inspectors "unfettered access" to its recently disclosed nuclear facility at Qom in two weeks or face increased pressure from the international community.

That pressure would likely come in the form of tougher sanctions on the Iranian government and on Iranian firms operating internationally. Such measures could target the country's oil and gas sector, as well as firms that insure shipments to Iran.

That ultimatum didn't last 24 hours before the State Department began back pedaling. It's disgusting, and frankly he looks like a friggin' chimp, uh, I mean chump. From our glorious bastion of freedom and hope, the State Department:

A State Department spokesman on Friday signaled that the president's mandate that Iran has two weeks to permit inspections of its recently unveiled uranium refinement plant was not "written in stone."

"I don't think that there's a hard-and-fast deadline,"State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said during Friday's press briefing, after a reporter asked what the consequences of Iran's inaction might be.

Cover your ears mom. Are you fucking kidding me?! This is the new foreign policy of the United States of America? To issue harshly worded ultimatums about allowing inspectors into Iran within two weeks, and then turning around in less than a day and saying that it isn't "written in stone" and that there aren't any "hard-and-fast deadlines"? Never was there a position of such stupidity that emboldens our enemies so much while encouraging our allies so little.

Will the left in this country finally admit that they thrusted upon this nation a circus act for a government, anxious to control our lives and repugnantly reluctant to defend this country and stand up to our enemies while damned straight giddy over the prospect and opportunity to betray our allies.

Seriously? FYB

Confirmed: Barack Obama Has Small Testicles

There was no doctors' report. No official White House statement on the matter. There was no press release and not even an annual presidential physical. But the world will note that yesterday, September 30, 2009, was the day that the answer to one of the world's greatest lingering questions was finally revealed: The leader of the free world has small balls. This came as a surprise to many of us on the right who have long suspected that the president had no testicles at all.

Yesterday, the White House announced that President Obama will take several weeks to review the nation's Afghanistan "strategy", a code word liberals use when they're really talking about "surrender". Yes, my friends, Barack Hussein Obama will now take several more weeks to review proposals his military advisers gave him more than a month ago. Since the requests for reinforcements began gathering dust on the president's desk, some 43 American troops have been killed waiting for commander-in-chief to respond to their commander's plea for aide.

Of course, there will be no aide, and Barack Obama is showing us what liberals meant as they shouted "What about Afghanistan?" during their protest of the Iraq war: "Why can't we surrender on two fronts instead of just one?" It is simply a fact that liberal Democrats were never truly interested in "finishing the job" in Afghanistan. Certainly they are no more interested in peace in Afghanistan than they were truly interested in freedom for the Iraqi people, a fraudulent support that quickly unraveled as they pretended to be shocked to learn that people die in wars.

The president's blinding ineptitude in managing this war is a result of inexperience, disinterest and weakness. He announced all the way back in March what he touted as a "new strategy" for Afghanistan, but as late as September was saying no new troops should be committed until we have the right strategy, a tacit admission that either a) his "new strategy" has completely failed or b) there never was a "new strategy" to begin with. Just words. My money's on option "b".

September 30, 2009 - Another American died in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the final day of September--and exactly one month after the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan sent a confidential war assessment to the Obama administration, warning that more forces are needed--soon.

On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of much discussion--and apparently some confusion--in Washington...

..In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.

As CNSNews.com reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which he described as war we “have to win.”

As president – in March 2009 – Obama announced a “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan: “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” he said.

The same president who devised America's new "Bend Over, Western Europe foreign policy and is cheerily optimistic about our "constructive beginning" in talks with Iran is will not travel to Copenhagen to talk about the upcoming Olympic games, of which his hometown of Chicago is a competing bidder.

Nice, Barry. Absolutely brilliant. What a clean, bright and articulate black man. The president of the United States lacks the will power to stand up to our enemies and do what is necessary to win the wars in which we are currently engaged. Good choice, America.