Barry In Charge: Pulling Out A Gun In Afghanistan

I love this poem from Kipling. It's what the bedouin soldier above is reciting to the mounted soldier Obama, complete with British uniform. This cartoon is brilliant on a few levels.

First, the British were very unsuccessful in controlling Afghanistan, and Barry in that costume is perfect, frankly. (Kipling was Brittish, of course.)

Second, the look on his face is the same face he gives us who caution him against the many bull-headed things he's done in the past 6 weeks. The wise Afghani is singing the funeral song for this British soldier passing by, but the haughty Obama can only look down at him in fury.

I wish the reality of this stubborn "Audacity Of Hope" trickster could result in something more benign, like the economic enslavement of an entire nation, but, alas, this charlatan we call Obama will end up killing damn good American men in an effort to "do something".

Michael Steele Steps In It

Let’s admit: Like too many African Americans, politics has only recently become worthy of DL's concern. For several generations in their community, politics was a “white man’s game”, and it mattered none to them who was favoring Constitutional principles, enlarging the welfare state, or even fighting the USSR.

These were all “white people’s doings”, and they weren’t expected to have an intellectual conversation about…well, hardly anything I can think of, but politics, to be sure.

But time has caught up with the DL Hugley’s of America. He has the same look on his face as the kid who’s starting to read his book report to the class, but he’s obviously floundering in his panic’d mind, raising his eyebrows as if he’s touching on some bombshell of a fact, when, in reality, it was nothing more than the blurb on the cover of the book. He tries to sell the audience that he really is upset and knows what the issue is ALL about.

Hugley is the African American who is wide-eyed and incredulous that a Rush Limbaugh exists on the airwaves of this great nation that finally elected a black man.Welcome to the conversation, Hugley. Some of us have been here, caring about these issues, for 40 years or more.

Where were you when we tried to explain to you that Conservative principles are what’s best for the African American community? A life of hard work, delayed gratification, and self-reliance would turn out a MUCH better result 20 years from now than to have the same person locked into welfare for 20 years. Who’s got more heart for the black community: the man who tries to “teach a hungry man to fish”, or the liberal who says, “take this fish and vote for me if you want another”?

But to the uninitiated, Hugley et al, this is a far too lofty notion to grasp, I guess. It’s funnier to not think about politics too deeply, so that you can then make cracks about it to a crowd of Americans who also don’t know enough about American politics. It happens every night with John Stewart and Colbert.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Isn’t it ironic that Chuck D, responsible for over 20 years of hate-filled lyrics against cops, society, “bitches”, etc, gets wide-eyed, too, along with his homey Hugley, at the mention of Rush Limbaugh? I rolled the tape back just to catch what brilliant criticism this race war-monger Chuck D had specifically to offer. Not surprisingly, this street poet who probably can’t even pronounce much less understand the words Rush Limbaugh uses every day, had this profound observation: “He gives you the idea that he could say anything!”

Yes, Chuck, it’s STARTLING, isn’t it? Someone like Rush, who insisted on being married by a black man nearly 20 years ago, might use words that sound wild and unforgiveable…like “free market”; “individual responsibility”; “self-improvement”; and “relf-reliance”????

I know, I know…it’s too much for you and DL to comprehend. That’s ok. You’ve been the product of low expectations from the Left all of your lives. That’s why so many of you can’t even read in America.

Tragically, it now looks as if the only crowd who used to see past your race and have higher expectations of African Americans should join the Left’s soft bigotry.

Words have meanings, Michael Steele.

Barry In Charge: Candidate Obama=Hate The Iraqi Surge; President Obama="We All Know That The Surge Worked"

Much thanks to the award-winning web author of Sweetness & Light, Steve Gilbert for alerting us to this stark video of the charlatans we call Obama and Biden.



Now, after seeing this much evidence of a raving Biden and a sanctimonious Obama, both being tragically wrong about something as grave and profound to America's greatness, her voluntary men and women in uniform...you should replay it again to refresh yourself on the first clip of Barry, which was filmed only 2 days ago.

The hypocrisy is defeaning.

The Communists Are Winning

American Government: A Quick Primer

Hillary: Still Crazy After All These Years

Hill's big debut on the world stage was met with mixed review: abroad, she was greatly received (not only did the ChiCom leaders greet her warmly-see lower video for obvious reason of their adulation of her-but also there were several dissidents who were restrained by the Chinese police state as they tried to find their old human rights ally Hillary), but domestically, it wasn't so great.

See, Hillary is a special case. So many American women see Hillary as a strong woman who stands firm on her convictions. "WHAT??? Hillary Clinton has morals?" I hear you ask, incredulously. And I completely agree with you. But can you believe that there are legions of middle-aged white women who haven't ever gotten it, until now?:


Here's a quick refresher course on Hillary, cattle futures, little old couples losing everything in Whitewater, and selling out our country to the Chinese:


Ultimately, the Chinese are going to do what they want to, regardless of how many First Ladies stand up and decry violence to women in China. They care about China first, Hillary and the US second. For a more serious assessment of the financial reasons why Hillary's public plea to the Chinese to continue buying our treasuries was completely done for show, check out this article.

Chris Dodd: Agent Of Destruction

Rick Santelli Gets My Paul Revere Award

This actually enjoyed two days worth of modest coverage, mostly as a snickering look-at-one-of-our-own-being-crazy news segment. Rick gets it, manages to say it in soundbite-length, and should be treated as saying something that ALL of our media needs to remember, but doesn't.

It's called First Principles.

In this case with the hysterical loudmouth Chris Matthews, Rick highlights the notion of "a card laid is a card played". Those who haven't played poker won't understand this axiom, but it essentially means that if you lay down your cards to show the two pair that you said you had [contracted], then when another player beats you with their three of a kind hand, you can't suddenly see a higher three of a kind you had missed in your original call of "two pair" when you laid it down.

But watch how Chris, typical of the MSM, brushes aside this chance to discuss founding principles of America because it gets in the way. "In the way of what" you may ask.

In the way of undoing our American Way. There's no better way to put it. If you aren't skilled in knowing our birth as a nation, this blog will confound you. You'll operate from a position close to that of Chris Matthews if you have depended on your high school and college professors to do the hard work of educating you on what it is to be an American.

The typical liberal hears a Rick Santelli enunciate the clear-headed, common-sense maxims of our constitution and national creed, and tries to find an exception to the rule by dreaming up a possible scenario which never happens in this country, yet serves as an actual debate against what we all know as the best possible way to exist with each other.

Watch as Matthews tries one of these sophistries with Rick:

ROLAND BURRIS: You Can Take The Politician Out Of Chicago, But you Can’t Take Chicago Out Of The Politician

In case you were numb, like me, to the Democrat politicians who are dropping like flies lately, allow me to alert you to the latest: Roland Burris. You may recall Burris as the Senatorial football that got intercepted by his own party after a few tip drills when Blagojevic tossed his name into the flats.

First he was "tainted" by proximity to Blago, and the Dem leadership in Congress was outright blocking him from entering the Senate. Then the 'R' word surfaced.

With courage and convictions like only a liberal can display, the senators reversed their ethical stance after 4 days.

So what could be the problem, now, you may ask.

Well, this former Attorney General who is used to sending you and me to prison over perjury issues has been discovered to have lied during sworn testimony to the Illinois House Impeachment panel on Jan. 8 this year. The panel was investigating whether Gov Blago or his administration had any contact with Burris in the preceding weeks and months to his "Pay to Play" scandal.

Burris said "no".

But it has NOW been disclosed from a Feb 4^th affidavit that Burris admitted to have spoken three times to Blago's brother and campaign finance committee chairman, Rob Blagojevich, about raising money for Gov Blago. To cover his tracks, he now says that after many days since appealing to Rob Blago [not Rod, the Gov], he began to realize that actually raising money for Blago would possibly be seen as "paying to play".

Burris is now embarking on a defense tour to dispel any myths that he did anything wrong. Big on his list of adoring fans was a semi-filled luncheon hall where on Thursday Burris told Chicago civic and business leaders that he had done nothing wrong and had "nothing to hide."

I'm sure that a crowd of "Chicago civic and business leaders" found no reason to re-think their choice(s).

As of Friday, Burris' new chief of staff, Darrel Thompson, has jumped ship. He quit, effective immediately, and has returned as senior adviser to that pillar of virtue Harry Reid.

Cloward-Piven Strategy: Castrating The US Inspector General

Cloward-Piven

From Byron York at the The Examiner:

The RAT hiding deep inside the stimulus bill
By Byron York
Chief political correspondent 2/19/09

The far-reaching — and potentially dangerous — provision that no one knows about.

You’ve heard a lot about the astonishing spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. But you probably haven’t heard about a provision in the bill that threatens to politicize the way allegations of fraud and corruption are investigated — or not investigated — throughout the federal government.

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

When Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime champion of inspectors general, read the words “conduct or refrain from conducting,” alarm bells went off. The language means that the board — whose chairman will be appointed by the president — can reach deep inside a federal agency and tell an inspector general to lay off some particularly sensitive subject. Or, conversely, it can tell the inspector general to go after a tempting political target.

“This strikes at the heart of the independence of inspectors general,” Grassley told me this week, in a phone conversation between visits to town meetings in rural Iowa. “Anytime an inspector general has somebody questioning his authority, it tends to dampen the aggressiveness with which they pursue something, particularly if it’s going to make the incumbent administration look bad.”

I asked Grassley how he learned that the RAT Board was part of the stimulus bill. You’d think that as a member of the House-Senate conference committee, he would have known all about it. But it turns out Grassley’s office first heard about the provision creating the RAT Board last Wednesday, in a tip from a worried inspector general. It wasn’t until Friday morning — after the bill was finished and just hours before the Senate was to begin voting — that Grassley discovered the board was in the final text. “This was snuck in,” Grassley told me. “It wasn’t something that was debated.”

Snuck in by whom? It’s not entirely clear. “I intend to get down to the bottom of where this comes from,” Grassley vowed. “And quite frankly, it better not come from this administration, because this administration has reminded us that it is not about business as usual, that it is for total transparency.”

Maybe not this time. When I inquired with the office of a Democratic senator, one who is a big fan of inspectors general, I was told the RAT Board was “something the Obama administration wanted included in this bill.” When I asked the White House, staffers told me they’d look into it. So for now, at least, there’s been no claim of paternity.

The RAT Board has all sorts of other things wrong with it. For one thing, it’s redundant; there is already a board through which inspectors general police themselves, created last year in the Inspectors General Reform Act. For another thing, it could complicate criminal investigations stemming from inspector general probes. And then there’s the question of what it has to do with stimulating the economy.

But none of that matters now. It’s the law.

Last Friday, when he learned the RAT Board was in the final bill, Grassley wanted to voice his objections on the Senate floor. But there was no time in the rush to a vote, so Grassley’s statement went unread. “It’s fitting that the acronym for this board is RAT,” he was prepared to tell the Senate, “because that’s what I smell here.” (source)