Tex, Lies, and Videofeeds

The president went down to Texas, where he told several breathtaking lies, mocked Americans in text and tone, and pretty much kicked off his 2012 compaign with another campaign speech intended for foreigners to consume, not Americans. Like in Berlin for Christ’s sake.
Really, I don’t have much to say about this sorry speech from this sorry man. He incorrectly frames the overriding debate over immigration as one of “who is and who isn’t allowed to come to this country,” when in fact it is about how people will come to this country, it was settled long ago as it is now a matter of law, and the problem is that the laws are not enforced.
Acknowledging that, however, would force the Democrats to address this … Continue reading

Immigration — Obama is Bluffing

I don’t ever endorse “win by losing” as a viable strategy, but in this case I can’t rule it out as a gambit.  In fact, I think that’s what he’s doing.

He doesn’t want to pass immigration reform right now.  He wants to pick a fight with the GOP  to curry favor with illegal immigrants and their power base (Democrats).  The tougher the fight is, the more he stands to identify with the reinforced victimhood of illegals.  Also, the more he can paint GOP as a bunch of racist recession reactionaries.

If he wins on his amnesty and more plan, the center swings against him, and he reinforces ONLY his base.  If he loses, however, the base is still the base, but the center is sympathetic.  At the … Continue reading

No Football to Spike

I was flabbergasted by the President’s idiotic comment about not wanting to “spike the football”. This is not a sport, and he gets the whole point of this wrong by viewing it as such. I have been quite supportive of the things he has gotten right in this, and given the benefit of the doubt where possible. This is an egregious unforced error, however. This is more of his reflexive blame-America-first-ism. How so?

The fact that he does not want America to be perceived as unsportsmanlike in our big win over whomever serves only to broadcast his gut feeling that it is the approval of our enemies which we must obtain, and that those on the fence, or who may not be enemies but don’t like us very … Continue reading

With Military Gay Marriage, Why Have Chaplains?

Frankly, I would expect to see a lot of resigned commissions. Especially this guy’s:

“Anticipating the elimination of the military ban on homosexuality, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains has decided that same-sex couples in the Navy will be able to get married in Navy chapels, and that Navy chaplains will be allowed to perform the ceremonies — if homosexual marriage is legal in the state where the unions are to be performed.”

I’m not religious, but I always supported having Chaplains because they were supposed to provide something for the troops which is as important as medical care *if you need it*. Chaplains are expected to uphold the tenets of their own faith (maintain accreditation, as it were) as well as live up to the … Continue reading

Movement in the Treeline

Communists marching in the streets of America.  The May Day rallies in 2006 were a turning point in the ability of the international communists to flex muscle in the United States.   I predicted it, and sure enough it’s here.  We have a Marxist in the White House, Big Labor running quasi-governmental organizations, some with quasi-judicial powers, and the Communist Party of the United States of America marching in the streets with signs, shirts, banners.

Some of us have never taken our eye off the Communists.  Did … Continue reading

Losing Pakistan

Townspeople in Abottabad are picking through the wreckage of our super-secret stealth helicopter, and carting away bits and pieces. I am fairly sure the US has asked for cooperation in retaining those odds & ends. I have no doubt that the military in Pakistan could have that place cleared of the living in no time flat, one way or another. They are so pissed at us that they will risk a serious rupture.

They have said that they will “review cooperation” if there is one more violation of sovereignty. Not if there are more, plural, but if there is “one more”. Well I figure the US can review our opinion of their sovereignty if there is one more breach of cooperation.

At the same time, I don’t think … Continue reading