Archive for March, 2009


Obama is trying to claim credit for the troop drawdown, and the media is playing right along.

Except that Petraeus planned this drawdown way back in 2007, when they were dissing him. I, and practically every other non-left wing blogger knew that they were going to do this. Well, we have the miracle of the internet. The record clearly shows that they wanted to abandon Iraq to genocide every step of the way, and it was only by fighting against the Dem’s attempts to lose Iraq that we have the success today that allows troop withdrawals in victory.

The NNSA forgot how to make a chemical foam that is a key component of Trident missiles. Oops. Sounds like we may be unilaterally disarming a bit more than we meant to.

Because they’re too cheap.

Just in case the rest of the economy wasn’t hurting you yet.

The Left’s memory and perception seems to change overnight when their own politicians get elected.

What was once the highest form of patriotism is now apparently tantamount to treason.

Britain’s Priorities

Yeah, freedom is dying there

Dead In The Water: Too Bad

New Hampshire decided that HCR06, a resolution affirming State’s rights based on Jeffersonian principles was inexpedient to legislate.

Too bad, it would have been really nice to see it go through.

Update: It was killed by the Dems (of course) in a party line vote. As one forum commentor at a site put it, if they’re so unhappy with the constitution, why don’t they just rewrite themselves a new socialist one? The answer, of course is that they can get what they want while pulling the wool over most voter’s eyes simply by constant and slow corrosion of our existing constitution.

Bloodthirsty Liberal points out that universal health care will let our society save money on health care the same way the Brits are able to.

Just think of the outrage and accusations you would not hear the end of if the Bush administration made comments like these, or if Bush couldn’t make a 6 minute speech without the use of a teleprompter.

Meanwhile, we’re still dealing with amateur hour in the foreign policy department. Or maybe malevolence. Can you imagine how much outrage you would have heard in the media if Bush had been even half as amateurish? And Obama thinks he’s restoring our reputation among our allies?

China, a communist country, is a more friendly investment environment than the U.S.

And the Democrats are trying to make things worse. It defies common sense.

I never noticed…

Oh wait, I did. I know people who bought it hook, line, and sinker, though.

Either way, Obama’s doing worse than even those of us on the right feared he would likely be.

Obama’s latest blunders/acts are here and here, also here.

But hey, for the purposes of fairness, the income disparity is being reduced. That was Obama’s economic goal, aren’t you glad he’s achieved it?

Wait, don’t go! Buy more stocks!” He tells us. Welcome to economics 101, Obama. The behaviors you penalize with the tax code will decline. You even understand this in other industries. So why do you maintain the liberal fantasy that you can just tax the high earners and the investors and they will continue to earn and invest to raise more taxes on your behalf?

They won’t – John Galt is real, and increasingly, all of us.

If Ted Kennedy is getting knighted.

And the changed attitudes of society. How long will we proceed in this direction before figuring out as a society that it doesn’t work?

As he makes rookie foreign policy mistakes. Maybe he should have sat in on some of those foreign policy meetings as a senator, don’t you think?

But don’t worry, he’s really very good at being president, according to…himself.

L0ts of blogs are picking up on this theme: Obama’s targeting of Rush Limbaugh is very classically fascist, even harking back to Orwell’s 1984. It’s true that you can fit the framework of all of the scapegoating Obama’s administration is doing into thuggish politics of distraction while enacting radical agendas, especially as Obama’s agenda is indeed a pretty hard turn to the left from what the country is used to, and especially as previous presidents have generally ignored responding verbally to their critics and been big enough to simply walk the walk and let their actions speak for themselves.

I’m not quite ready to go there though, and propose a simpler explanation: the country elected someone who’s only achievement was that he could run a campaign – and certain fools actually thought that that was a good qualifying achievement for being president. Now we have a president who doesn’t actually know how to do anything else – and he is now demonstrating that.

No border security or fences with Mexico, instead, the solution to violent Mexican drug cartels is to restrict U.S. gun sales.

I should point out that everything makes sense if you lose the assumption that the Democrats are trying to help the average American.

By adding his own. I don’t think I remembered Bush having any earmarks…or even any of the other presidents.

I can’t believe I actually had arguments with people who thought that Obama would be better on earmarks than McCain, who’s one of the only politicians who actually has the will to resist and oppose pork. Given that Obama did have a history of using earmarks to benefit himself, how the heck did people actually think that he would be different as president?

Hmm, the D.C. Examiner is critical of Obama as well, but they completely fail in understanding something about recent history themselves: They blame the Republicans for indulging in pork during the previous administration (which they did) but don’t seem to realize that, by nearly every measure, the Democrats were worse for pork during the previous administration than Republicans – and so were an especially foolish choice for American voters for trying to stop the flow of pork.

Neat.

Of course, the problem with nuclear energy isn’t reactor designs. We’ve got so many modern designs that solve every complaint about nuclear energy that the point should be moot. No, the problem is politics: the left doesn’t want nuclear energy because then we would have nuclear energy (yes, the argument really is circular), which is why we can’t actually build any of our modern designs.

Buyer’s Remorse For Obama?

Hey, it was pointed out again and again during the election that Obama had no history of being a moderate (while McCain is famous for being bipartisan and moderate), and in fact was historically the most partisan senator around. And now you guys are expressing regret that you didn’t know he would be this way?

I’m glad you’re seeing the light, but you do realize how foolish that makes you, right? And how much of a disservice you, as journalists, did to the country by not holding Obama up to serious investigation before electing him (and encouraging others to do the same).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers