Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Top 10 Comebacks for Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh to Barbara Boxer:

Visitors might want to share their opinions and write to the lovely and talented Senator from California: (reminder: be nice)

Senator Barbara Boxer
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3553
(202) 224-0454 fax

Have you ever wished that you could have thought of a good comeback when dealing with an idiot.

Usually the perfect "zinger" comes to us later on, like in the shower or driving (like George Costanza and the "Jerk Store" retort.) Here's my opinion on what the General should have said, but being an honorable man, he had the discipline to bite his tongue. (Now THAT'S "Army Strong.")

Here are my Top 10 comebacks to Sen. Boxer:

10. "I was going to say 'Madam' but then realized that you probably have never run an actual business."

9. "Chairman Boxer. My military training has instilled in me a code of conduct and decorum that requires that others be treated with respect. The terms “Sir” and “Ma’am” have historically been used as terms of respect and deference to those in senior authority. It was with this intention that I addressed you in that manner: to accord the courtesy and respect you have indeed earned by ascending to this lofty office. I only wish that you had the good manners to reciprocate this common courtesy to a Brigadier General in the United States Army."

8. (In a raspy voice like Marcie to Peppermint Patti, and with apologies to Charles M. Shultz) “I apologize if you find the term disagreeable, sir.”

7. "Senator—American is made up of many ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, political views, sex, color, creeds, occupations, life experiences, etc. The American people are routinely reminded to be accepting, understanding, and tolerant of the perspectives and traditions of others. The military is my culture; being a walking hemorrhoid from California is yours. I will try to remember to respect your request, but, should I forget or accidentally slip, I ask that you try to respect mine."

6. "I called Senator Baucus “Sir” a minute ago, would you like me to use that term with you, too?"

5. (In his best Bobby De Niro imitation) “Are you talkin’ to ME?”

4. (apologies to David Allen Coe) “I don’t have to call you Darlin, Dar-lin. I don’t have to call you by your name…”

3. "Next, the committee will hear testimony from Heidi Fleiss. She's also demanding to be called 'Senator' because like the Chairwoman, she's worked hard to get where she is too."

2. (Apologies to Jimmy Buffet) “I really do appreciate the fact you're sittin' here. Your voice sounds so wonderful, but yer face don't look too clear. They say you are a snuff queen; Honey I don’t think that’s true. (I'd stop here, because the General is a family man with undoubtedly better taste.)?"

1. "Sure. Would you prefer 'Senator Asshole' or just plain 'Senator?'”

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Bam to "Axis of Evil": See no evil, speak no evil

Couple things about O and Iran.

First, in the days before and during the Iranian election day, Bam & Company were glowing and crowing about how Bamster's influence. Cited for the overwhelming turnout and excitement was Bam's famous "extended hand to an unclenched fist" policy and of course the "great Cairo University speech." Yep, it was Obama the world had to thank for the "vigorous debate" demonstrated at the polls (pretty much taking credit for the high turnout and challenges to Ahmadinejad). Unprovable statement but unchallenged by mainstream media.

[Editor's NOTE: As opposed to say, the presence of a now democratic Iraq next door?]

Here's proof: If his speechifying was so influential, imagine what another one of his speeches could do for the people of Iran and the world now? Too bad, the US must stay out of things & remain silent. (Uh, maybe the time for that was before people started getting shot in the streets.) Only until Bam sees how things will shake out so he can claim credit for it (again unprovable but unchallenged by mainstream media).

Next, even after his lofty, wise and statesmen-like "see no evil, speak no evil" policy, Barry is being accused of tampering and interfering by the Supreme Leader regardless. Under Bush's enhanced interrogation policy (used on two really bad apples and killed no one), Obama claims we shamed one of our country's founding principles. Which of these cherished principles is honored by official silence while peaceful protesters are being shot in the streets by their own government's hand?

To be sure, the leading opposition candidate isn't a choir boy, nor would he necessarily be a friend to America or the West. But look at the movement, not the leader -- The answer is on the computer screens: the people protesting aren't wearing robes, headscarves and aren't sporting full beards and holding up pictures of Ayatollah Khomeini -- they are young, old, men and WOMEN, dressed in western style clothes, fairly well educated and modernized (based on their use of English seen in signs, mastery of video and Internet technology and calls for less government belligerence). How could THAT candidate be worse than what's in place now? If he wins, do you really think he's going to be pleased to have gotten not even a word of encouragement from us? If he looses, do you think Ahmadinejad is going to "owe" Bam one?

Lastly, here's the dirty "open" secret: Obama CAN'T say anything encouraging because that would then lead to images of protesters carrying signs reading "Obama, help us!" and "America, where ARE you?" which would then lead to calls for us to "DO something." And the US can't do anything with muscle or teeth because that is what GWB did next door in Iraq, and Barry, his party, Hollywood, the European Left, and most importantly all his financial contributor groups have spent the last 8 years bitching about.

"To sit across the table [from] a man whose regime has just killed
people, for example, it's going to be a public relations nightmare for the Obama administration."
-- Abbas Milani, who directs the
Iranian studies program at Stanford University

[Editor's Note: Curious--when was the last time we saw photos in print or video on the news channels of the Iraqis pulling down that big stature of Saddam and beating it with their shoes?]

Guess we can't have that, now can we?

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

W says, "See I told you so"

If GWB hasn't actually said "I told you so," he has every right to.

One wonders how things might be different in the streets of Tehran today had George Bush's critics within and without the government not been as obstructive and destructive back in 2003-2004. What if the global support from our "allies" could have embraced his/Cheney'/Rumsfeld's vision of Iraq being an "island of democracy” in that part of the world? A beacon of hope that other oppressed Muslim peoples could look to?

What if American resolve hadn’t wavered and allowed the collective Left to give moral support to the Iraqi Resistance (and Syria, Iran, etc.)? What if those who were killing our troops with IEDs and suicide attacks didn’t have as many occasions to rejoice upon seeing the US media reporting on all the deserved and undeserved Administration missteps? What if there had been no Abu grab pictures to give the Great Satan his black eye? What if the US ousting of Saddam hadn't been slowed and hobbled by the one-sided international coverage of staged & promoted street protests by the usual anti-capitalists, former Communists, anarchists, Earth Firsters, Hollywood/TV/pop music/pop culture elites, the Cindy Sheehan's and The "Peace" Movement rent-a-mobs?

What if GWB had the fawning cooperation of the US news media and entertainment elite to support his policies in that part of the world as Barak Obama now enjoys?

Can we imagine how much closer Iran would be to real reform today, and how much stronger our position would be to encourage those brave people now dying in the streets? (And of those who are dying in the streets—whom do you think they’d prefer to have occupying the White House today?)

GWB may not have been the most eloquent speaker to live at 1600 Penna. Ave., but I wonder if he's watching the news tonight down in Dallas and lamenting that it was all these others "who just didn't get it."

Well THIS isn't in the script

Photo: LA Times

"The decision comes as many in the gay community have voiced disappointment with the president, especially after the administration filed a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act."
While the news story is from today, the photo dates back four weeks. Note: posters were NOT made by Right-wing wackos, see the rainbow flag above the "Fail" one. (My personal favorite.)
Of course it appears new to many of you because most of the country didn't see this photo or video images because the State Media Industrial Complex won't carry images like this. But like we're seeing in Iran, even the most locked-down media black-out has some leaks and here's one.
Either that or somewhere out in LaLa Land someone apparently didn't get the memo. (Note: this photo accompanied a story back in late MAY when The Teleprompter was raising money in Hollywood.)
Like we've been saying for years about other "special interest groups" -- it's not like your going to suddenly take your money and go vote Republican.
So what if it takes a little time--Bam's operating on HIS time, not yours. So my advice is to chill out, wait a little longer ("Milk" is coming out on DVD soon, so focus on that) and when he gets Healthcare and Cap-and-Trade done, then he'll get to you. Eventually. Maybe.
Tell us which is worse: a president who disagrees with you but tells the truth and lets you know where he stands; or, a guy who takes your vote, takes your money, uses your "people"-power, says what you want to hear, but doesn't do it?
If you really want to be a pain, ask him if a same-sex ceremony can be performed in the White House or Rose Garden. You know, just to see what he says.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

And the transparency continues......

A funny thing happened on POTUS' the way to "openness and transparency."

If you notice, one phrase is becoming more and more used (finally) the further we get into this administration: "Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to ____ (fill in the blank)...."

"Obama blocks list of visitors to White House
Taking Bush's position,
administration denies request for logs"

(Naturally, they had to throw in another Bush jab, first. Can't just criticize the Teleprompter on his own merits, no. Maybe he "picked something up" from W on the toilet seat in the OOffice?)

He realized what all the other guys had and the reason they insist on keeping it. Sure is easy to criticize and make points on the campaign trail; completely different thing once you have it. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Monday, June 08, 2009 video: The presidential teleprompter

The presidential teleprompter . Folks: I’m a follow of this guy's Twitter site. Once again, your host, .... on the cutting edge!

June 2: TODAY correspondent Jamie Gangel takes a closer look at a member of the White House that has been getting a lot of attention — the president’s teleprompter.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

I thought the government was supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Our local paper has a poll today, asking:
"Should consumers who trade in their older vehicles get government vouchers to buy newer cars?"

Obama voters would generally say:
"Yeah! Great idea. Would really help people make the switch to greener technologies and help GM & Chrysler get back on their feet."
--- Or worse ---
"Heck. You'd be dumb not to take advantage of free money."

Except of course what Obama voters don't consider is that the money for the voucher has to come from somewhere -- more like from "someone."

This, gentle readers, should illustrate to the difference between a "credit" and a "tax reduction" or "tax return." Tax returns and/or reductions are monies that are already the taxpayers -- money he/she has already earned that you allow them to keep or get back. This as opposed to monies coming from the raised taxes paid by other taxpayers who didn't (or couldn't) do this activity.

The same is true for all these "stimulus saved or created jobs." The only good news that could come from stimulus would be a job created in the private sector. While I'm happy people still have gigs and I wouldn't wish to be unemployed, I'd be much happier and the economy would be MUCH better off if the jobs were OUTside of government.

Wealth (and tax monies) can only be truly created by the marketplace from the private sector. Otherwise, you are just spreading tax money from one hand to the other.

With all the who-ha about "being green" and "sustainability," the above outlined strategy is itself an "unsustainable" daisy chain with the green of taxpayers.

For all their talk about separating Church and State, The Left routinely resorts to Robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is especially the case when they seek to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

(And "seize" is the operative word ;-)

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Rush Punks SRM (again)

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Talk Radio. Kathleen Hall Jamieson on History and Impact PBS: "The person who listened to political talk radio as a conservative is more likely to be a consumer of mainstream media than a person who isn't a high consumer of political conservative talk radio." (2-13-2004)

Can't believe MSM or as RL would say, "State Run Media," fell for this.

Rush is only saying this so that MSM/SRM is:
1) "forced" to ask her about her position in order to distance herself from appearing to appeal to him (whom the Left hates), and thus,
2) Put in position to illustrate her views do not represent the majority of Latinas, most of whom claim a Catholic background and many espouse "Pro-Life" positions vs. "Pro-Choice"; thus, proving the his point.

RLPunked” them here like he did to Hillary during the 2008 Democrat primaries. A Rush endorsement does madam judge more harm within her Dem/Lefty base than his worst criticism could ever do. They're probably huddled right now thinking, “How can we disavow this "endorsement" without showing our true hand?”

Got into a convo with a Lefty about this. “April” was typical in calling Rush listeners every disparaging name in the book, so I had to correct her. Certainly, Political Talk format has its share of crude, rude and obnoxious audience, but really not any more than other formats, say ... Urban Contemporary.

(Editor’s note: Have you given that a listen? There's a LOT of hate on that air. An unabashed favoritism toward Bam that makes Fox or Talk Radio pale – pun, sorry -- in comparison. Where’s the Fairness Doctrine when you need it?)

To prove my point, I challenged her (and you, gentle readers) to check out the work of the Univ. of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communication, and professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson. She researched this theory since the mid-90s (after the Republican Revolution Midterm sea-change) ostensibly to prove “April’s” assumptions. They were (and continue to be) surprised to find out Rush's audience was actually better educated, more exposed to different media news sources, more politically active and likely to be voters, than comparable listeners of even NPR. (Google it; it’s true. Bill Moyer's NOW 2-13-04)

Garden Variety Liberals (aka “Rush haters”) are actually more guilty of what they accuse Rush Listeners of being – robotic sheep that hear nothing but their master’s voice and can’t think on their own. While the rank-and-file libs you meet at parties or on the street readily discount Limbaugh (and talk radio generally) and demean the audience “across the fruited plain,” THEY do so at their own peril. They are also whistling past the graveyard when they pooh-pooh Rush as being “… just an entertainer, doing it for ratings.” Rush knows otherwise and (and so do most of his listeners).

This “he’s just saying that for the money” mantra from the Left actually provides Rush, in effect, with a cloak of immunity. But that’s Rush’s final insult to injury because he doesn’t.

The Lib Leaders, on the other hand, know better. That's why Air America was tried (… and tried, and tried, and tried—and failed). And that’s why "Fairness Doctrine" is being re-floated.

Monday, June 01, 2009

Survey says.... only white guys can be racist

Apparently the overnight poll focus group data has come in and the RNC has determined the whole "racist" thing isn't playing well to the female 25-54 demo (as Keith Olbermann used to say when he was a sportscaster). They are ceding the high ground (and logic) for a position that's less "unsightly."

Successfully grafting their talking points into the "stream" of the "mainstream" media, the Donkey Party has unwittingly (they do this a lot) undone one bow of something nicely wrapped up to use it as a tourniquet for another wound. Apparently they've raised (or is it lowered) the standard by which one can be called "a racist."

Used to be, that anytime Person A said his (her) own race was in any way, shape or form "better" than Persons B-Z race, that constituted being a racist. Now, that's just a "poor word choice."

Getting carried away with their defense (they do this a good amount, too), the Dem talking points arguing against the "R" word applying to the good madam judge is that the standard for being called a "racist" is membership in the KKK?

"... she's been called the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux
Patrick Leahy, D-VT.
(If that's the case, then I can only think of one certain elder Democrat
senator who would qualify, but not any Republicans.)

Still, even if mere KKK membership (not leadership like the senior senator from WVA) is the minimum standards for being a racist, then Rev. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and a lot of other folks have some apologizing to scores of white people they've labeled as racists over the years for reasons and causes not nearly as important as this.

Heck, we shouldn't even mention Rush's unsightly ESPN exit in 2003 and his infamous assessment (opinion) of the NFL's Donovan McNabb. And all Rush had was a one-night a week football analyst stint, not a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court. (Many people thought Rush was Right, too.)
The National Association of Black Journalists also called for ESPN to "separate
itself" from Limbaugh.
""ESPN's credibility as a journalism entity is at stake," NABJ president Herbert Lowe said in a news release. "It needs to send a clear signal that the subjects of race and equal opportunity are taken seriously at its news outlets."

Recall how George Allen was roundly denounced on CNN and everywhere else by talking heads because he uttered just ONE word (a made-up, nonsensical name) at a campaign stop? He LOST his senate seat largely because of that backlash. For certain, if HE had it to do over, he would re-think his "poor choice of words." But does anyone think for a minute that Allen's little slip of the tongue wouldn't be dragged back out if he ever decided to make a political comeback?

Words have meaning, and like elections, they have consequences consequences. They do for people on the Right; but it appears as if people on the Left are immune.