Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Hyphenated American said it first

One of the listeners of my interview to Jimmy Z claimed a few weeks ago that I could read Obama as an open book. I must say that I was unduly pleased by this comment – but must confess that unfortunately I am not that good. And yet, I would like to make a quick analysis of what Obama has in stock for our nation.

In order to look through Obama’s eyes, I have to make a number of certain claims about his personality. Firstly, he is a psychopath and a narcissist. Secondly, he is obsessed with ruling other people (for their own good, of course), and he cannot imagine himself being wrong. Thirdly, he is ruthless and unprincipled – and has the experience of a Chicago political street brawler. Lastly, he may be badly educated – but he surely understands the human soul, and he is only too happy to use this knowledge for his lowly ends.

What do these assumptions give us? Obama’s health care is in shambles – with a good chance of being repealed or seriously weakened in one year. Republicans are destined to take over the House and maybe even the Senate, and his chances to win the 2012 elections are bleak. If he is thrown out of the White House in 2013, he will have to live the rest of his life as an utter failure scorned by everyone – even Carter circa 1980 would look victorious compared to him.

So, what would a narcissistic psychopath with sadistic tendencies do in these circumstances? History teaches that people like Obama find one sure way to bolster their popularity- start a war. The enemy seems to have chosen itself quite well – Iran, or as Obama likes to call it – The Islamic Republic of Iran (funny that I never heard Obama talking about the Jewish State of Israel). Any attentive reader would notice that all of a sudden we were fed plethora of news about Iranian nuclear program, and how Obama administration is not prepared to deal with the challenge of nuclear Iran. In fact, Iranian nuclear bomb is now shown as inevitable – something than no one can stop now.

And surely, I must note that Obama is unlikely to launch a war against Iran – this would jeopardize his chances for re-election. After all, Obama needs to convince the independents that he is a decent candidate while keeping his loony left-wing base (about 10% of the voters). An attack on Iran will thus be counter-productive to his goals. So, what is the solution to the problem?

The solution is fairly simple. In the last few months Obama spent inordinate amount of effort in showing to Israel that her safety is the least of his concerns. One can easily read between the lines his message - if Israel suddenly disappears into the sand, Obama will rejoice. For all intents and purposes, Israel is alone today. Moreover, Obama’s obvious anti-Israeli bias encourages the most vicious anti-semitic groups in the moslem world – just a few days ago we’ve learned that Syria transferred scores of Scud missiles to Hezballah. The negotiations with PLO can be ruled out – Obama’s insistence on Israel’s unilateral concessions went much further than what PLO had demanded and made PLO’s agreement to talk to Israel quite impossible.

On the other side, Iran is quickly developing its nuclear arsenal. At this point, no self-respecting expert would guarantee that Iranian mullahs won’t transfer a nuclear bomb to an Al Qaeda-type group that would later smuggle it inside Israel and detonate in a large population center. Anyone who doubts that should explain how Israel is supposed to act if it is attacked by a nuclear terrorist group. Who should Israel nuke in return? And moreover, will the world stand by and allow Israel to nuke, say, Iran, if UN publicly announces that it is not convinced that the nuke came from Iran. Or maybe Iranian government will suddenly discover that indeed one of its nukes was hijacked by a Palestinian – and they are apologizing for the inconvenience. Will the world sit idly while Israel sending hundreds of nuclear missiles into Iranian civilian centers and killing tens of millions of people?

So, it is clear that the situation for Israel is dire, and she cannot let Iran acquire nukes. And if history teaches us anything – when Israel is faced with a dangerous situation, she makes one choice – she strikes back as hard as she can. The experience of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising taught the Jews that it’s better to die standing, and I have no doubt that millions of Jews feel the same way (American liberal Jews non-withstanding).

In this light, Obama’s actions make perfect sense – he is attempting to distance himself from Israel as far as possible to achieve two goals:

1. Isolate Israel and push her to attack Iran.

2. To have reasonable deniability when the attack occurs.

After Israel is forced to attack Iran, I have no doubts that the mullahs will retaliate – and they will not limit their attacks to Israel. It is very likely that one way or another, the US will be hit – be it a terrorist attack against the US base, closing of the the Strait of Hormuz (which will choke the world oil supply), an explosion on a US oil tanker – or even a domestic attack in American heartland. And when that happens – Barack Obama will make a long speech on television about the “Day that will live in infamy”, make a few passing comments about the fault of the previous administration and hasty response of Israel – and declare war against Iran. It will all be very heartbreaking – peaceful US led by a reasonable leader Barack Obama was attacked by an evil regime, and America was pulled into a foreign war. Just remember all the conspiracy theories about the Spanish War, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam War – and remind yourself that Obama most likely believes these theories. In the end, the left will bite their tongues, the moderates will applaud and conservatives will join the military and go to war against the mullahs.

And while the war is going on, Obama can nationalize healthcare and banks, put price controls on everything, and set the unions in control of all major companies and raise taxes.

I would really want to see anyone who could find a flaw in this plan – I really would…

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Silverfiddle gave me an idea for this article

Silverfiddle responded to my sarcastic post about Obama's nuclear summit and proposed the following idea:
The first thing the new Republican president should do in January 2013 is invite the Polish president and the Israeli prime minister to a big state dinner, publicly embrace them and tell them how sorry he is for the embarrassing behavior of the clueless ass-clown who preceded him.

I can only say that I agree with him, and I would include Honduras, Czech Republic and Britain in the list of guests in the White House (these are the US allies that our Marxist-Leninist in Chief managed to insult in the last 1 year - there will most likely will be more 3 years from now). I believe it would be quite appropriate that our next president would apologise to our allies for the arrogance of our previous "regime".

After that, the new president should invite Palestinian Authority, Iran, Venezuela and Russia and tell them that he is deeply sorry that his predecessor left the wrong impression of America. I think the quote from the movie "Casino" perfectly illustrates the conversation that should take place between the tyrants of these rogue regimes and the US. I believe our next president should be able to use the street language in order to convey to our enemies how America feels about the current situation.

Banker to gangster: What are you gonna do, strong-arm me?

Gangster and Banker both laughing.

Gangster - You know, I think you've gotten the wrong impression about me. I think, in all fairness I should explain to you exactly what it is that I do. Tomorrow morning I'll get up nice and early, take a walk to the bank and walk in and see, and, uh, if you don't have my money for me I'll crack your f*ckin' head wide open in front of everybody. And just about the time that I'm comin' out of jail hopefully you'll be comin' out of your coma. And guess what? I'll split your f*ckin' head open again. 'Cause I'm f*ckin' stupid. I don't give a fuck about jail. That's my business. That's what I do. We know what you do. You fuck people out of money and get away with it.

Banker: - You can't talk to me like that.

Gangster: Hey, you fat Irish prick! You put my money to sleep.- Get my money, or I'll put your brain to sleep.

Gangster’s friend: - Sam!

Gangster: Never mind Sam. This is personal. I'll be there in the morning. You can try me, Fatso. You f*ckin' try me. You think he got the point?

And if you think this is too much, let me remind you how Harry Truman treated Stalin's lackey, Vyacheslav Molotov in 1945:

"Harry S. Truman who was not afraid to use the bomb or to get tough with the Russians. In becoming president following Franklin Roosevelt's death on April 12, 1945, Truman knew nothing about the bomb and little about foreign policy, but he was capable of independent and decisive action. As the British historian Paul Johnson described him: "The new President, Harry Truman, was not a member of the wealthy, guilt-ridden East Coast establishment and had none of Roosevelt's fashionable progressive fantasies. He was ignorant, but he learned fast; his instincts were democratic and straightforward."
Determined to push his point on Poland as a symbol of Soviet-American relations, Truman had his first personal exchange, tart and brusque, with Vyacheslav M. Molotov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, in Washington on April 22 and 23, 1945. The President used "words of one syllable" to convey his insistence that Poland be "free and independent." 

"I have never been talked to like that in my life," Molotov complained.

"Carry out your agreements, and you won't get talked to like that," his host retorted.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Time to strike the arrogant ones...

I believe the most irritating people are not liberal elites - these are open and straightforward enemies. People who irritate me most are the people on the right who try to show off and dismiss the grassroots Tea Party movement as too primitive for their refined taste. This blog is a perfect example of such attitude.

The man running it throws around names like Hayek, Friedman and Rand - and then dismisses the right-wing folks as too vulgar, too simplistic for his taste. Which reminds me of a quote from Vladimir Putin, who said some time ago that he was truly missing Mahatma Gandhi - he just could not find anyone else who could satisfy this thirst for a meaningful discussion.

Of course, I could not walk by this blog without spitting - and this is the message I've left (minus the spelling errors) in response to his response to my response. I have a feeling the readers may enjoy it.

CL: You don't say why you found the post strange, actually you don't say much at all

I've been to a Tea Party demonstration, and I saw people who were genuinely upset about the growth of the government. Somehow, you missed them. Moreover, I've spent a lot of time arguing on slate - and it was a normal situation that the right-wingers stood for smaller government, while the left stood for larger government. In other words, all my personal experience directly contradicts what you have written. I thought it was obvious from my post - but I assume some things have to be said more than once to be understood.

CL: You do say Obama is a socialist and then assert that somehow the location of your birth makes that statement true.

If this is how you understood my post, then it makes sense why you missed all the people who are against expansion of the government.

1. I did not say that Obama was a socialist because I had been born in the USSR.

2. I did say that Obama is a socialist, and that I say so as a man who was not only born in the USSR, but who was also raised and educated there. In other words - I've lived in a socialist nation, and you cannot simply dismiss my view - you are talking to a real life expert here, comrade. This surely does not prove that I am right - but it should make you think twice.

CL: Socialism is the collective ownership of the major means of production.

Yes, it is - or more accurately - it's society's ownership of the means of production. But it is a generic definition, and there are different ways on how society (read government) exercises its control over the property. For example, in Yugoslavia, the labor unions officially controlled the factories - this was Yugoslavian socialism. In Germany, the state nationalized people - and it was called national-socialism. In Italy, the top Italian communist Mussolini (the former editor of the communist newspaper and Lenin's pet darling) built soft-socialism, which he called "fascism". And then we can talk about French socialism advocated by aristocracy - the one that Karl Marx hated - which is why he preferred the term communism. Or we are talking about Venezuela's socialism? Maybe you are talking about socialism in Nasser's Egypt?

All in all, there are a lot of flavors of socialism - I presume your lack of knowledge is explained by the lack of actual experience.

CL: Are you saying that is what Obama is proposing?

Which one do you think he wants to build? Rev.Wright's fascistic socialism with distinct Marxist themes? Ayers' communism? Van Jones' communism? The Maoism that people in his administration like? Or maybe we can just call him a vulgar socialist and be done with this triviality?

Based on Obama's past history - would you tell me what you think...

CL: Or are misusing the term socialist to mean statist?

Or maybe you don't see that statism and socialism are virtually indistinguishable?

CL: So far Obama is not advocating government ownership of the means of production, just government control.

Firstly, Obama is advocating state control - and he is openly saying that he needs special circumstances for that. Freddie and Fannie are nationalized. Same for GM. Now he wants the law that would allow him to nationalize any financial company. And he wants to nationalize medical insurance. Are these actions not socialistic by definition?

CL: He is a statist, and a welfare sate advocate but he is not a socialist, at least not openly or in direct policy decisions.

No, nationalization of GM was not socialist, it was - well, I don't know, he nationalised a company. And his appeals to nationalise medical insurance in the future - that's not socialism. Right?

CL: That is not to say his policies are good. They aren't What Obama is closest to is a fascist. Fascism allowed private ownership, but had state control. That seems more in line with Obamanomics.

Yugoslavia allowed private ownership. So did Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And so did USSR from 1922 to 1930. This just the most basic things. But really, fascism is just an advanced and more effective version of socialism - compared to Pol Pot's Cambodia or North Korea.

BTW, do you know that Soviet people were allowed to own gardens and to sell the produce on the market? It's all a matter of degree, comrade.

The most important thing is not who nominally runs the company - but who has the power to shut it down if he wants to. In Nazi Germany the CEOs were private, but Hitler could change them at will. In USSR, the CEOs were directly chosen by the communist Politburo. The real difference was that German capitalists were better managers than Soviet Party Leaders - but there was not much of a difference from a position of power.

You talk about Hayek in your post, but I am getting a distinct feeling that you did not read his "Road to Serfdom" too diligently. I suggest you re-read it.

The story continued...

The owner of the blog refused to post my reply in full, and refused to engage me in a discussion.

Instead, he wrote the following to me: Normally I reply one on one but when people inundate the site with multiple long posts I do not. Very few people do that because it is not polite. So I won't reply, nor can I afford the time to go through and read that many messages from one person. Since I can't do that much work for one person I can't moderate it and thus it doesn't get posted.

Well, color me non-surprised.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Hyphenated American Reports from the Obama nuclear summit #1

Obama bows to Chinese tyrant.
Obama bows again to Chinese tyrant. Look at the shadows - Obama is about to start licking his boots.

Obama greets Canada. The love is in the air. No bows here...

Obama cannot keep his hands of this guy - this is him the Russian tyrant, Mr.Medvedev! I love you comrade, can I kiss you?

I swear to you on rev.Wright's grave - my wife Michele bought exactly same bag only two days ago. It's wonderful.

I just farted, and this guys don't even know it yet. Silent Killer, I say.

I am not drunk at all - look I can stand straight without anyone holding me.

What did you say to me? Do you want to take this outside, or you want me to slap you right here, in front of all your boyfriends?

US congressmen shitted the healthcare bill this large - and I thought it would rip their asses into shreds - but Barney Fwanks told me he's had bigger ones.

Obama got intoxicated with adulation. The poor chap can hardly walk now.

Obama meets Japanese PM. Obama: "All Japanese are ninjas, so I better treat them nicely. A bow will most surely work."

Friday, April 16, 2010

What's new, pussycat? #9

What's new in the Middle East?
As one would expect, Obama's policy of appeasing state sponsors of terror is bearing bitter fruits. Both Iran and Syria are now busy arming Hezballah, a Lebanese terrorist group. According to British sources, Iranian government recently transferred a large number of new missiles to Lebanon. According to Israel, Syria in turn has supplied Hezballah with Scud missiles - the same kind that Saddam Hussein had used against Saudi Arabia and Israel in the 1991 war. All the while, Iran is rushing to produce nuclear weapons.

Obama's response to this leaves nothing to imagination. On one side, he does absolutely nothing to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry. On the other side, he is pressing and isolating Israel. A recent report stated that when Israel was considering to use its air-force to prevent the delivery of Scuds to Hezballah (such a delivery breaches the cease-fire agreement of the latest Israel-Lebanon war and Israel lcan treat this as an act of war) - Obama's regime pressured Israel to ignore the violation and instead rely on John Kerry's negotiating skills. The exact quote from the US official would be downright hilarious if we were not talking about actual human lives that will be lost because of this stupidity: "The White House had to talk them [Israel] down and promised that Kerry would use strong language with the Syrian president". I can imagine that Syrian dictator is trembling...

What's even more hilarious is the response of the pro-Syrian elements in the US governments. According to one such "expert", Mr.Tabler, "The move is bizarre, and certainly not the sort of move [the former president and Bashar's father] Hafez al Assad would have made". This reaction reminded me of Jimmy Carter astonishment when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Back in 1979 he too was puzzled by Soviet militarism.

Clearly, the Middle East is rapidly becoming a far more dangerous place - and we should thank Barack Hussein Obama for this. In the last year he enabled the enemies of the West and dissuaded the US allies. There will be hell to pay for this.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Dumb Ass Liberals

A few days ago, our brilliant Leader declared that He intended to kill an American citizen, who also happened to be a moslem terrorist. I am a bit uneasy about the fact that our president has the power to order assassination of Americans - but I must confess that the liberal reaction to this development was absolutely amazing. If anything, liberals never disappoint me.

Firstly, the media has hardly noticed the news. It was reported matter of factly – nothing to see here, some minor tweak to the BushHitler policy. Secondly - well, there is much else there, everything was peachy, move along, nothing to see here.

According to Washington Post: “The move means that Aulaqi would be considered a legitimate target not only for a military strike carried out by U.S. and Yemeni forces, but also for lethal CIA operations.”

After all, Obama is a liberal, and if he orders CIA to kill an American citizen - it must be for a good cause. As NYT notices:

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.
In other words, when George Bush puts the individuals and groups (non-US citizens) that pose an imminent threat to US into Guantanamo - this is a Constitutional crisis, but when Obama kills US citizens who, in his view are a threat - then it's all legal. Brought to you by NYT and WashPost.

Even Salon's ultra-liberal Glenn Greenwald was forced to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the liberal media and so-called “civil-right activists”:

George Bush's decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives. All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law. Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind. And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent…

Some simple-minded liberals proclaimed that they were betrayed by Obama. These claims allowed Hyphenated American to pour some scorn on liberals (his comments were unceremoniously deleted by the site owner due to their heretical nature - three times in a row!).

Anwar al-Awlaki is embarrassing Obama - so the Dear Leader ordered Anwar to be killed. In no way this proves that Obama is betraying his principles or changing his mind on civil liberties or losing his idealism. Obama is not 12 years old, and he is unlikely to change his views willy-nilly. Obama is as Obama does. Don't tell me that you believed all that hope-n-change crap for a second. Obama is a boringly normal traditional fascist - think Mussolini, Nasser or Putin. If you are surprised at what Obama is doing I can only conclude you are/were not watching Fox News and/or listening talk radio. If you want to know what happens tomorrow - close the NYT, turn off MSNBC and start reading what the right-wingers have to say.

Don't mistake Obama's assassination of moslem terrorists (who happens to be US citizens) with betrayal of "progressivism". Just like Lenin and Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Castro did not betray progressivism - neither did Obama. It's naive to think that progressivism is somehow akin to non-violent Buddhism. The use of union thugs, government oppression and the like are normal middle of the road leftist policies. If you doubt me - just check out how ACORN (Obama's alma mater) was dealing with corporate executives - and yes, it included violence and threats of violence. And poor liberals thought that Obama would only use violence against the "enemies of the people"? Don't forget - if you piss off Obama, you will become the enemy of the people and you will be dealt with. The world did not start with the election of the One.

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Russians made a move against Eastern Europe

"But I'm a superstitious man. And if some unlucky accident should befall him - If he should get shot in the head by a police officer, or if he should hang himself in his jail cell - or if he's struck by a bolt of lightning, them I'm going to blame some of the people in this room, and that I do not forgive. But, that aside, let me say that I swear, on the souls of my grandchildren, that I will not be the one to break the peace we've made here today."
Don Corleone to the other Dons in the movie "The Godfather"

It's been reported on the news that a progressive (right-wing) president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, was killed in an airplane crash near the Russian city of Smolensk. Lech Kaczynski was travelling to Katyn, a burial site of tens of thousands of Polish POWs that had been exterminated by Stalin during WW2. Polish President was a dedicated anti-communist and one of the leaders of Solidarnost, which fought against the Soviet rule of Poland in the 1980ies. Lech Kaczynski was interned by the pro-communist regime, and was later released.

After Lech Kaczynski had been elected president, he steadfastly opposed the Russian aggression in Georgia as well as Russian pressure on Western and Eastern Europe. Lech Kaczynski was a solid US ally and a promoter of European-based missile defense system. In 2009, president Obama unilaterally withdrew from the missile defense agreement with Poland and Czech republic as part of the policy of appeasing the Russian government. The US president carefully chose the day to announce his betrayal - it was the 70th anniversary of Nazi invasion of Poland. Obama's betrayal of Eastern Europe was called "catastrophic" by the Polish patriots and was roundly condemned by numerous civil rights activists and dissidents in Europe.

Lech Kaczynski was a great statesman and supporter of liberty everywhere in the world. He was the staunch ally of the good and a solid enemy of the bad. His death is a big loss to all freedom-loving people of the world.

It is my personally feeling that the death of the Polish president is hardly accidental. It's beyond any doubt that Lech Kaczynski was an obstacle to Russian silent aggression in Eastern and Western Europe and not-so silent aggression in the Caucasus. It is also clear that he was not liked by the liberal establishment in Western Europe and US, as well as the Obama administration - because he was a man who saw things too clearly, and who was not shy to point out liberal nonsense.

Lech Kaczynski was not educated in the post-modern politically-correct Ivy League schools of soft sciences - he learned how the world worked under the Soviet regime in the Poland - and he never forgot the lessons he was taught by the regime. Lech Kaczynski spent a big part of his life living in Obama's Utopia, in a country which was run in accordance to "Dreams From My Father" - and he knew the insides and outs of Obama-paradise - probably better than Obama knows them himself. The "Glorious Future" that some liberals hope will come 100 years from now to US was Lech Kaczynski's horrible past. This could not be forgiven. Lech Kaczynski objected to Western liberals and Russian plutocrats - and it was dangerous - and in the end this is what killed him.

The most likely scenario is that the Russian bear (with tacit Obama approval) decided to demonstrate to the Eastern European democracies that the Empire is back with a vengeance. It is no accident that this happened a few days after Obama agreed to disarm America in order to appease the Russian despots. No reasonable observer can neglect to notice that US president is openly resentful of the US allies, and Russian elites fully understand that the entire Europe is now ripe to bend under the pressure from Moscow.

As vice-president Joe "dumbass" Biden astutely observed in 2008 - the enemies of America will come to test the new president - and 2010 is the year when his prophesy will be realized. Putin-Medvedev clan is now showing to all Eastern European leaders than they can assassinate anyone without fear of revenge. The Putin's policy of killing Russian dissidents now spilled outside of the Russian borders - the gang is now killing foreign heads of state. Obama's posturing made the world a much more dangerous place.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Obama versus Carter - very entertaining

Sometimes it's amazing what you can discover when you read old news. This is the reason why USSR made a concerted effort to destroy old newspapers. During Stalin's regime, it was dangerous to keep old newspapers - since an individual could easily see the changes in the government line by reading them. Soviet propaganda machine was famous for changing old photographs of the Soviet leaders - because year after year one "old Bolshevik" after another was declared enemy of the people. The funniest accident when in 1953 the Soviet government finished publishing the Soviet encyclopedia and sold it in the stores - and a few months later it had to send specific instructions to the readers on which pages were supposed to be torn out, and what "additional material" had be substituted. If I remember correctly, among the people who "disappeared" from encyclopedia were MGB (later renamed KGB)chief Abakumov and the top executioner Lavrentiy Beria (Khrushchev and his friends declared both of them "enemy of the people" and killed them same year).

Lets take a walk down the memory lane and look at Jimmy Carter - and compare him with Barack Obama. I guarantee you that some of the things you read here will be amazing.

Lets start with some obvious and well-known facts. When Carter was campaigning for presidency, his slogan was "the government as good as the people". He promoted a view of himself as a nice, clean, religious man, an outsider.

Pat Caddell, Pollster: Going from total anonymity, to being President of the United States in less than twelve months, is unprecedented in American history. If it weren't for the country looking for something in '76, Carter could never have gotten elected.

Jimmy Carter was such an unknown candidate in 1976 that when his own mother heard he was running for president, she asked, "President of what?"

Narrator: He had promised a new beginning. To heal the wounds of Watergate and Vietnam. A government "as good and decent and compassionate as the American people."

Need I say "Barack Obama"?

Doug Brinkley: This is one of the most highly ambitious people you will ever meet. I mean you don't make it from Plains Georgia to the White House just on charm. But what makes him complex is he's got that kind of hubris and arrogance. And also this Christian humbleness. That's the battle he's constantly finding himself in.

Barack Obama - from the plains of Chicago to the White House just on charm. Arrogance and hubris.

Dan Carter: He had a tendency to take his case to the people and then try to force the legislature to follow him. He never, as Governor, broke what I think was an unfortunate habit of seeing personal politics, as kind of, that is with other politicians, as a kind of nuisance, something that had to be done, because you had to talk to these people. He never developed the interest in or really particularly good skills at working with individuals who may have disagreed with him.

Barack Obama!

Doug Brinkley: Nobody knew him. It was like picking a name out of the phone book. I mean, it takes a bit of hubris to think you're the best person to be the President of the United States, because you were a one-term governor of Georgia.

Need I say more - wink-wink, nudge-nudge.

Peter Bourne: He was a wonderful speaker before small groups. He would get up and talk without notes with extraordinary passion. Almost like a preacher really having the spirit with him.

Carter is a better speaker than Obama? Amazing... I bet you money Carter did not use the teleprompter.

BTW, did you know that Carter was a cool man?
"Pressure, such as it was, never made Carter nervous. Just the opposite. He had a phenomenal ability to grow calmer while others went bonkers. Rafshoon would pace and pull on his curly locks, Jordan would boil, Eizenstat would blurt out criticisms, and Powell would smoke cigarette after cigarette. Carter just flashed a steely grin. The political commentator and historian Garry Wills once described Carter’s “ferocious tenderness, the detached intimacy, the cooing which nonetheless suggests a proximity of lions.”

Barack Hussein Obama! Although I never saw anyone comparing Obama with a lion. I do think someone compared Obama with God.

Narrator: But as election day approached, he was pressured to take a stand on the issues.

Gerald Ford: Jimmy Carter will say anything, anywhere to be President of the United States.

Gerald Ford: He wanders, he wavers, he waffles, and he wiggles. He isn't the man you want for President of the United States.


Bert Lance: He was a moderate to the moderates, he was a conservative to the conservatives, he was a liberal to the liberals. And in fact, he was all of those things.

Barry! Barry! Barry!

Carter: We are going to have a fair government once again, we are going a government that's open and not secret once again.

Joshua Muravchik, Coalition for a Democratic Majority: His standard line, when asked about his foreign policy was, that he wanted to provide a foreign policy as good as the American people. Well, gee, that's great, but what in the world does it mean?

Carter: You can depend on me. You help me, I'll help you...

Need I say "Obama's stash"?

Betty Glad: The gist of what he presented was that he would be a centrist Democrat who had liberal values in his heart, as well as the desire for frugality and thrift and efficiency in government. And so he could appeal to people from all parts of the Democratic party. But as Julian Bond said at one point, "The problem with this is, his support was an inch deep and a mile wide."

Sounds familiar? It gets better....
After Carter was elected, things started getting dicey very quickly...

Dan Carter: Here was this tremendous breath of fresh air. He was going to bring something new to Washington. Bring new people and new ideas.

Obama is some kind of God - so says one liberal. Or, as Obama said - we are the ones we were waiting for.

Carter: Our commitment to human rights must be absolute. Our laws, fair. Our natural beauty, preserved...

That does not sound like Obama, though. He is not into America...

Jack Farrell: It was so different from what had come before. People were looking for something that was simple, something that was pure. And it just struck a cord in the American people.

Narrator: The Carter team arrived in Washington full of confidence, ready to take on the Washington insiders they had run against.

But things did not work out really well though...
James Laney: He [Carter] thought people would just follow, but that didn't happen.

Carter : and I want to arouse our nation to join me in this effort. . .

Narrator: There were growing doubts about Carter's leadership. The President, most Americans believed was too mired in details. Was ineffective with Congress. Had attempted too much, and delivered too little.

Stuart Eizenstat, Domestic Policy Advisor: This is a classic case where first impressions often sets in with people. And the first impressions of that first year were too many things, lack of priorities, a lack of accomplishment// The fact is we actually had a good legislative record. But, we had thrown so much up that, in comparison to that, the accomplishments seemed to pale.

Rosalynn Carter: I would sometimes say, "Why don't we do this in your second term?" And he would say, "What if I don't have a second term?" And I think he felt that way the whole time that if something needed to be done, it needed to be done.

If you watch Obama's actions - does sound like a question Obama would also ask himself - "What if I don't have a second term"?

Carter: All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night, we can save half the current shortage of natural gasЉ.. If we learn to live thriftily and remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust.

Narrator: Carter lead by example. He curtailed the use of limousines, cancelled magazine subscriptions, unplugged television sets, and put the presidential yacht Sequoia on the auction block.

Walter Mondale: He turned off the air conditioners, and it was so hot in the White House, people would come in there -- [laughs] It was unbelievable. It would be a hundred above in there.

Narrator: There was nothing in the package to grease the wheels of government. When Carter struck from his budget nineteen multi-million dollar water projects that had been approved by President Ford, Congressmen were furious.

This does not sound like Obama at all, does it? Obama has Carter's arrogance - but if anything, he is all for turning up the thermostat for himself, travelling to NYC to have dinner in a nice restaurant - and surely Obama enjoys having receptions in the White House and $150 per pound beef during his dinners.

Elizabeth Drew: He was absolutely right to take it on, these sort of boondoggles and unnecessary, really pork-barrel things. But he didn't know how to take it on. You have to build political capital, you have to build alliances, you have to make deals.

Bert Lance: The quid-pro-quo was not in him. If you came to him and said, "Look, we can get so-and-so to vote for us," he would turn a deaf ear.

This is certainly not Obama. If anything, Obama has no issues with pork-barrel spending, corruption and malfeasance.

Doug Brinkley: Often he wouldn't return phone calls of leading Senators. There was a kind of an abrasive attitude he had towards them. He never showed them respect. So they all eventually got bitter and turned on him.

Does Obama respect anyone?

Dan Rostenkowski, U.S. Congressman: We were all invited down to the White House every other Tuesday. We walked into the private dining room on the first floor just off the East Room. We looked at the table and there were these little finger-tip cookies, and ... Tip O'Neill looked at me and he said, "What's this?" And I said, "Well I guess that's breakfast." So the President walked in and shook hands with everybody. And O'Neill looked at the President and he says, "Mr. President, you know, we won the election."

Peter Bourne: Carter thought that big social programs and large amounts of federal spending would bankrupt the country. He could see, I think, very clearly where the world was going and that that old era had to be phased out.

No, that's not the Obama we came to love. Deficits, spending never bothered him.

Narrator: Carter's commitment to fiscal restraint appealed to a growing number of Americans. "He brings to the (office) a refreshing habit of plain words and simple manners," wrote Newsweek. "A mind and discipline of tempered steel, and an insatiable appetite for work. Carter had entered the presidency with only 51% of the vote. By June, he enjoyed an approval rating of over 70 percent. Then, came an event that rocked the foundation of the Carter Presidency. It was called the Lance Affair. In July 1977 Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, was accused of financial improprieties at his bank in Calhoun, Georgia. A federal investigation cleared Lance of any illegal activity, but concluded he had engaged in "unsafe and unsound banking practices."

Well, Obama hired a dozen Lances - and it never bothered him a bit.

Narrator: Only nine months in office, Jimmy Carter was a wounded leader, struggling, to regain the confidence, of the American people.

But after his programs started failing, and his attempts to push hundreds of new legislations through Congress were stalled, poor Carter went berserk. He escaped into a seclusion, changed his hair style (which was interpreted as evidence that he had had a nervous breakdown by some analysts) and barely escaped a killer rabbit. After that, he met with dozens of people who were supposed to represent the American people (they ranged from left-wing to extreme left-wing), and came back to make a "malaise speech", which main point was that American people were just not good enough for him. After that, the nut farmer was done for - and this was even before the Iranian mullahs stormed the US embassy and took American hostages.

It's difficult not to see the obvious resemblance between two liberals. I am curious about one thing now - when will Obama change his hair-style?

"Jimmy Carter's right-side part may have reinforced perceptions of inadequacy; he didn't switch hair-part side to the left until halfway through his presidency -- too late. "

TIME's Hugh Sidey noted that White House barber Milton Pitts was "aghast" after Carter's shift in do, "confiding to friends, 'That guy is not going to last.' One Pitts theory was that untested leaders could, with seemingly innocent things, set off a slide into oblivion. In Pitts' view, Carter's hair change was too dramatic, suggesting self-adulation."

Carter's disappearance and the malaise speech

“What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?”: Jimmy Carter, America’s “Malaise,” and the Speech That Should Have Changed the Country

Carter leaves the White House secretly - and no one knows where he is. He stays in Maryland, invites scores of ultra-liberals and discusses politics with them.

He would remain at his Maryland retreat for an informal summit with the American people. Over several days, governors, spiritual leaders, lawmakers, business executives, labor bosses and journalists paraded through Camp David, meeting with Carter for wide-ranging conversations on the nation's problems. It was an extraordinary week and makes for one of the most compelling portions of Mattson's story.

Most "American people" were devoted liberals - very few people from the opposing political camp were invited.

Narrator: Carter retreated to Camp David. For the next ten days businessmen, labor leaders, governors, pop psychologists and clergy were called to the mountain top to participate in one of the most extraordinary episodes of presidential soul searching in American history
HENDRIK HERTZBERG: Basically this was a kind of a self-psychoanalysis by Carter and the Administration. He sat up there and listened to the most scalding critiques of his presidency.

The malaise speech, 1979
"Carter sat at his desk, leaned toward the cameras, pounded his fist, grinned his grin, and let big words and ideas fly. He condemned the American way of life. We as a people, Carter explained, “worship self-indulgence and consumption” and are mired in “fragmentation and self-interest.” “Our people are losing” faith in “the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy.” He didn’t have to say it but he did anyway: “This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.” He spoke openly of the nation’s wounds—of King’s and Kennedy’s assassinations, “the agony of Vietnam,” and the “shock of Watergate.” He recognized his own weaknesses as a leader and the fact that “all the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America.” “I realize that more than ever as president I need your help,” he intoned. It was a speech of humility and honesty and more."

Barack Obama is known to say the following: "We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership."
And now, back to Jimmy Carter.

ROGER WILKINS: When your leadership is demonstrably weaker than it should be you don't then point at the people and say, "It's your problem." If you want the people to move, you move them the way Roosevelt moved them, or you exhort them the way Kennedy or Johnson exhorted them. You don't say, it's your fault.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: The op-ed pieces started spinning out saying there's nothing wrong with the American people. We're a great people. Maybe the problem's in the White House. Maybe we need new leadership to guide us. It boomeranged on him.

Jimmy's expertise in the foreign policy was equally strong.
Narrator: The dangers of the Cold War were driven home when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan Christmas Day, 1979. Three years earlier at Notre Dame Carter had declared the United States, "free of that inordinate fear of communism." But Soviet-American relations had soured, Afghanistan was the final blow.

Frank Reynolds: Have you changed your perception of the Russians in the time that you've been here? You started out, it seemed to a good many people, believing that if you expressed your good will and demonstrated it that they would reciprocate.

Carter: My opinion of the Russians has changed most drastically in the last week than even the previous two and a half years before that. It's only now dawning upon the world the magnitude of the action that the Soviets undertook in invading Afghanistan.

According to Muravchik:
George McGovern was quoted as saying that most of Carter’s State Department appointees were “quite close to those I would have made myself.” Meanwhile, Carter excluded the Scoop Jackson wing of the party almost entirely from his administration. His surprising tilt away from anti-Communism was made explicit in his first major foreign-policy address when he proclaimed: “we are now free of th[e] inordinate fear of Communism. . . . We’ve fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is better quenched with water.”

Cyrus Vance, Carter's Secretary of State, claimed that Soviet and American leaders “have similar dreams and aspirations about the most fundamental issues.”

Just like Obama, Jimmy Carter always had an affinity for anti-American dictators:

According to Muravchik, Carter thus described the communist dictator of Romania, Nicolae Ceausescu: "Our goals are the same, to have a just system of economics and politics, to let the people of the world share in growth, in peace, in personal freedom, and in the benefits to be derived from the proper utilization of natural resources. We believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people.

Carter hailed Yugoslav dictator Josip Tito as “a man who believes in human rights” and as a “great and courageous leader” who “has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last forty years.” Visiting Poland, then ruled by the Stalinist hack Edward Gierek, he offered a toast to its “enlightened leaders” and declared that “our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland . . . much better than other European nations with which I am familiar.”

And then, we got Obama crawling before world dictators, bowing before tyrants and hugging US enemies.

And I bet you did not know that Carter also loved and respected the Shah of Iran (before he was deposed):

Just months before the outbreak of the revolution that culminated in his toppling, Carter declared in a toast that Iran was an “island of stability” thanks to the “love which your people give you.”

The US economy under Carter - 15% inflation, 10% unemployment.

ROGER WILKINS: Inflation makes you doubt the future. When you have inflation you don't see as much building going on. You don't see as much investment going on. You don't see as much hiring going on. People weren't seeing their savings growing and as a matter of fact people were terrified that inflation would impoverish them in their old age.

And then Mr.Reagan came in and freed the country from Jimmy Carter, healed our economy and defeated the USSR.

Reagan: The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.

After Carter lost elections - his life was over...

Narrator: Carter was only fifty-six, was already labeled "a has been," "a shooting star with not even a tail left to fizzle."

AMES LANEY: It wasn't just that he-he was unpopular. People avoided him. This is hard to say and hard to believe today, people didn't want to associate with him.

CARTER: We are very glad to be back in Haiti. A country obviously dedicated to peace, human rights and democracy.

DOUGLAS BRINKLEY: So even Cedras who was considered a brutal thug by the US government, Carter felt that he could appeal to his sense of what is right and what is wrong. This caused Carter a lot of criticism, coddling dictators around the world.

Narrator: In May 2002, Jimmy Carter went to Cuba: the First American President to visit the island in over 40 years.

In an address broadcast throughout Cuba, he defied President George W. Bush, by calling for an end to the decades old U.S. trade Embargo.

Carter is also known for his consistent anti-Israeli position and his coddling to fascist and communist dictators. But luckily, Jimmy is not the US president anymore - and I hope the day will come when we can say the same about current resident of the White House - "Obama is no longer the US president. Right now he is on his fifth trip to Cuba. I've heard he is studying Cuban health care system".

As reader may imagine, this entry only touched the surface when discussing Carter and drawing parallels between those two characters. I believe though that this letter contains enough material to entertain a lot of people - and I hope one day I will rework it to be a more organized and detailed thesis.

Comrades, what do you think about this post?

Friday, April 9, 2010

American foreign policy

Another day brought us plethora of news about American foreign policy. As I expected - the news were not good.

1. Jewish scholars were denied visa to the US
As one would expect, Obama decided to prove once again how much he cared about Israel - and denied visas to Jewish scholars. None of the scholars had any criminal record, ties with terrorists or made any pro-terrorists statements. Surely this was enough to have them banned from US.

2. Hamas supporting Islamic scholar granted visa to the US
Reversing the decision of Bush's administration, Hillary Clinton personally granted an entry visa to Tariq Ramadan. His previous visa was denied because of his ties to Hamas. Tariq is known for his extreme views of Islam, and he was often critisized in Europe for anti-semitism, support of barbaric Islamic practices and the like. Tariq is also known for sugar-coating extreme Islamic views. Read this article and find out how this poor fellow was forced to run away from reporters, who were not afraid to ask him carefully designed questions.

3. Obama administration is bargaining on behalf of PLO
Obama officials are now bargaining with Israel on behalf of the terrorist outfit PLO. The PLO is very pleased with Obama. Israel - not so much. "A senior PA negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said rather than act as an intermediary, the U.S. has been negotiating with Israel on behalf of the PA, assuming all Palestinian positions and bargaining with Israel from the Palestinian side."

4. Obama increases pressure on Israel
Obama's representatives are sending number of people to spy on Jews who build houses in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. If any changes are noticed, Obama administration makes angry calls to the Israeli government.

5. Bibi Netanyahu abruptly cancels plans to attend a nuclear summit in Washington
After Obama humiliated Israel's prime-minister, Bibi decided there was no reason to meet with Obama's officials. After all - what was the point of listening to hours of anti-semitic propaganda coming from Obama regime? Moreover - who in a sane mind would voluntarily listen to Obama's lecturing?

6. Obama bans all references to Islam in security documents
If Obama were the US president , he would have banned any references to Germans and Japanese in the war documents. After all - it could make them mad, right?

My intuition is telling me that there is a common theme in all of these news from one day, but I fail to link them all together. Could someone help me?

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

California is less credit worthy than Kazakhstan

Things continue to deteriorate in the People’s Republic of California. What was once described as a laboratory of liberalism is now ready to face its maker.

Back in June 2002, Harold Meyerson from liberal American Prospect declared that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control." In the Golden State, Meyerson said, "the next New Deal is in tryouts."

During last few decades, California was known as a state where all new liberal policies originate. From uber-high taxes to uber high spending and uber tough regulations, California is known as an outlier in the nation, and probably the most European part of the United States. Even when California elects a nominally Republican governor, it continues its left-wing drift.

For example, according to George Will “If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit, which is larger than the budgets of all but 10 states. Since 1990, the number of state employees has increased by more than a third. In Schwarzenegger's less than six years as governor, per capita government spending, adjusted for inflation, has increased nearly 20 percent”

In spite of all budgetary issues, California continued to push for costly environmental regulation. The liberal media could not hide its delight with the process of Europezation of California. Time magazine lauded Schwarzenegger as a hero for ignoring all the financial problems in California and instead allying himself with liberals and spending 3 billion dollars on stem cell research as well as signing a multi-billion dollar “Democratic bill capping greenhouse-gas emissions.”

But now the fun is over and California is forced to pay for the decades of experimenting with liberalism. According to LA Times, “The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported. “The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.”

Of course, this situation did not materialize overnight. According to same newspaper, “In California's case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same period.”

The market could not fail to notice the downfall of the mighty California, and the state bonds started approaching the status of the Enron stocks after the 2000 crash. The state Treasurer Bill Lockyer was not amused, and he filed a formal complaint that “Data reported in the news media and other sources show that the prices, or spreads, on California CDS wrongly brand our bonds as a greater risk than those issued by such nations as Kazakhstan...”

A liberal newspaper Financial Times could not miss the opportunity to stick a knife into Billy and had this to say: "The real Kazakhstan, although not problem-free, looks fairly solid compared to California and many other states - a fact that should spook investors in America's $2,800bn municipal bond market."

Of course, California is not alone in its financial struggles. According to Forbes, the “bluest states (are) spilling the most red ink.” The article declared that “The five states in the worst financial condition – Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey – are all among the bluest of blue states.”

According to Tax Foundation, the top ten for state-local tax burdens in 2008: 10.) Rhode Island 9.) Wisconsin 8.) Vermont 7.) Ohio 6.) California 5.) Hawaii 4.) Maryland 3.) Connecticut 2.) New York 1.) New Jersey.

Notice that excluding Illinois, the states in worst financial condition also have the highest taxes in the nation. It’s quite apparent that if anything, the current problem with liberal states is not low taxation – but rather exorbitant spending and regulations.

Of course, the problem with over-taxation and over-spending is not limited to states. Some local epicenters of liberalism experience same consequences. For example, this liberal county in the otherwise conservative state has spent itself into oblivion by “going green”.

Today we can confidently say that Obama is following the example of the governors of failed liberal states. At this point it remains an academic exercise to predict when America will face high inflation and even higher unemployment with possible bankruptcy of the federal government. I don’t think this can be stopped – but I believe it will be a very useful teaching moment for the entire nation.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

How to slash medical costs in 8 steps

I've been carefully listening to the debates concerning American medical care, and I’ve noticed that few politicians (republican or democrat) actually discuss the methods to cut medical costs. As an electrical engineer and as a student of Hayek-Sowell school of economics, I’ve decided to summarize a list of steps that would most certainly affect the cost of medical care. Note that unlike all other proposals, my list is solely based on free market principles, and does not require any increase in government power.

How to slash medical costs in 8 steps

1. Allow the sale of all medical drugs and medical equipment, which are legal in EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Japan. Make their FDA approval optional.

2. Everyone who has a doctor’s license in those countries should be allowed to practice medicine in US. Moreover, US policy must encourage and aid immigration of doctors from those countries to America. Immediate permanent residency to all practicing doctors from developed countries who want to come to the US.

3. Abolish state limitations on minimum medical insurance coverage.

4. Give private doctors and hospitals same protection from lawsuits as the government entities currently enjoy.

5. Strengthen control of US borders in order to prevent the entrance of illegal immigrants.

6. Permit hospitals and emergency rooms to refuse service to illegal immigrants.

7. Provide equal tax deductions to group and individual buyers of medical insurance as well as for any purchase of medical care.

8. Start privatization of Medicare and initiate gradual cuts to Medicaid.

What's new, pussycat? #7

Passage of Obamacare causes an explosion in the number of uninsured
In his recent speech Barack Obama complained about the existence of 50 million people without medical insurance after the historic Obamacare bill had been voted upon by Congress and had come into effect. Amazingly, this number is much higher than the number he reported months ago – which was only 30 million people. It seems that the passage of Obamacare resulted in immediate loss of insurance for about 20 million Americans. Of course, Obama is the man who a few weeks ago predicted the drop in insurance price by a whopping three thousand percent – so it’s fair to say that mathematics is not the subject that Obama understands or cares about.

So, what is happening here – is Obama gone completely insane, is he on some kind of mind bending medications – or there is a method to his madness? My answer to this question – all of the above. A 3000% man (and a former cocaine addict) is responding to a new political situation. When Obama was trying to push through the deeply unpopular Obamacare, his main task was to convince as many people as possible that the new legislation would not subsidize tens of millions of illegal immigrants, and that it will not break the US treasury.

Today, when the bill was voted into law, Obama’s first task is to extend its application to as many people as possible – including the illegal immigrants. Apparently, Obama decided that at this stage it is more beneficial to appeal to illegal immigrants than to persuade Americans – and so the number of uninsured went up by 20 million.

Of course, another explanation is that 3000% Obama does not distinguish between 30 million and 50 million (it’s all Greek to him) – and this explanation may be correct. What do you think?

A very funny response on-line
This blog answers a girl's question on how to deal with a racist mother of a boyfriend. According to the story, the black mother of a boyfriend hates all white people, and she is upset that her son is dating a cracker. One of the readers left this advice for the suffering girl:
Learn to speak Ebonics. When you see his mother, throw down comments like "Yo! Momma!! Wha'sup wif dat? We be gettin' it on, baby!!
What do you think - does this approach has a chance of mending the great divide between the white girl and a black mother?

EPA commissars choose to ignore their own regulations
In a startling development, EPA administrators chose to ignore their own predictions of impending Global Warming – and instead of cutting down the CO2 emission – chose to increase their carbon-dioxide footprint on the suffering planet. Moreover, these shenanigans caused American taxpayers additional $13,000. I am shocked – this sounds completely impossible. It is almost as unthinkable as a US president demanding American people to turn down their thermostats to save the planet – and then turning the White House into a hothouse for orchids during a chilly DC winter.

Nancy Pelosi against Woody Allen
As you may have heard, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi recently proclaimed "We have to pass the bill [Obamacare] so that you can find out what is in it.” Nancy’s insane ramblings joke reminded me of a good quote from Woody Allen’s movie “Love and Death”. In the movie, Woody Allen is a Russian, who is conscripted against his will to fight the French army. In one of the scenes, he marches with the Russian troops and they enter the field laden with corpses from the previous battle. The frightened soldiers observe the gruesome scene, and the following dialogue ensures:

-Oh, God is testing us.
-If he's gonna test us, why doesn't he give us a written?
This is exactly how I feel about Obamacare – could we find out what is in this bill by actually reading it – instead of having to experience it on our backs? Wouldn’t it be a little bit cheaper?

It’s official now - Barack Obama is a Kenyan
Michele Obama recently said – Kenya is Obama’s home country. So, anytime any leftie tells you that it’s racist to say that Obama is a Kenyan – point to this video and ask if Obama’s wife is a racist

Monday, April 5, 2010

What's new, pussycat? #6

CBS interviewer gets on his knees and begs Obama to teabag him

CBS jouralist Harry Smith decided to go savage against Obama and truly push our affirmative action president to the limit. As comrade Smith said in his interview “People in the mainstream media have been accused of being afraid to speak truth to power. I've got some truth to power for you."

Alas, old habits die hard, and when Obama agreed to an interview with CBS, and Harry Smith  saw our commander in chief, his legs went wobbly and he dropped on the knees in awe. In the presence of Greatness, Harry did what every loyal subject would do – he railed against the enemies who dare to dissent against the Emperor. According to Harry, some ungrateful scumbags called His Majesty “Socialist” – surely our president is ready to chop off the heads of these heretics and put on them on the stick. And when our Liege mentioned the names of rebellious serfs – Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Harry Smith went into barking mood and begged Obama to just whisper an order – and Harry would personally find those ungrateful sons of pigs and tear them apart with his own teeth. As Barack Obama said in the interview – he likes his dog to have some spirit in it – but it is beyond doubt that he prefers the media to be neutered. President Truman some time ago quipped “If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog” – but president Obama need not worry about getting himself a dog – he got the media on the leash – and ready to die for the One. In the meantime, they are busy licking his balls.

Some Jews are waking up to Obama’s hatred of Israel
The most promising story this week was the awakening of Former New York Mayor Ed Koch. In his recent interview he said that Obama was clearly hostile to Israel and that recent treatment of Israel Prime-Minister was outrageous. Koch indirectly apologized for telling American people in general, and American Jews in particular that Obama was a friend of Israel. At the end of the interview, he conceded that Obama was ready to throw Israel under the bus in order to please the Moslem nations.

My first impulse when I heard this story was to mock Ed Koch for his stupidity and ignorance. How come that everyone with IQ above room temperature knew that Obama hated Israel – and Ed did not? Should we believe the impossible and conclude that not only he reads the New York Times – but he also trusts what is written in this left-wing propaganda outlet? I mean, how low can one go? But as a wise man I am inclined to follow Talleyrand famous advice “Mistrust first impulses; they are nearly always good” and proceed with caution.

A bigger issue is not the apparent “What the f*ck is wrong with Ed Koch?” A really good idea would be to tell Ed Koch that though he misjudged Barack Obama – it was not Eddie's fault. Somehow, someone in the mainstream media misinformed him about our future president, and either did not study Obama’s anti-Israeli history or lied about it. Can Ed Koch list the media outlets that convinced him that Obama was the friend of Israel? Moreover, we should remind Ed that Fox News, AM radio and conservative newspapers provided plethora of information on Obama’s anti-Israeli history – and yet he was clearly unaware about it.

The only conclusion that Ed Koch must make – if indeed he is truly heartbroken about being misinformed about Obama’s true intentions towards Israel (and also misinforming other Jews about same) – is to remember once and for all that even though he may disagree with conservative media, he needs to listen to them very carefully from now on and not dismiss their claims out of hand. The second thing he should remember is that mainstream media should not be trusted. If he learns these two lessons, and if he is brave enough to teach other liberal Jews to do same – then maybe indeed it was not his fault that he misjudged president Obama.

Eddie-baby, what do you say to that?