During his appearance on Letterman last month, Obama the Expiator of All Thy Sins said of Nakoula Nakoula that he is “someone who lives here” and that he is a “sort of a shadowy character.” The rest of Obama’s word salad regurgiated for his fanboy Letterman were the incoherent stumblings of a liar too proud to admit that he’s been busted. Nothing he can do now will unring the bell of his lost credibility.
So “someone who lives here” is a transient notion to my ears. Obama didn’t call Nakoula a citizen or an American, pointedly. Then he calls him “sort of a shadowy character,” which is not a phrase used in normal human conversation, but in the minds of fiction-writers. But what does this President know about Nakoula? As an ethical matter, he ought to know more about him than most, considering what value he has derived from their association. Does Obama pay him somehow? Is he on the payroll of the State Department? Is he a company spook? You’re telling me that we don’t have some use of an English-speaking Egyptian Copt, if that’s what Nakoula really is?
Barack Obama doesn’t really care about the Constitution. He thinks it’s acceptable to knowingly bear false witness against his neighbor, Nakoula Nakoula. The President of the United States and his Secretary of State and his ambassador to the UN, among many others, have allowed the personal destruction of this “shadowy character” to provide themselves with some poor excuse. Why can’t they just see that it was a symbolic nose-bloodying, carried out on the anniversary of Osama’s great triumph? Or do they allow the possibility that it was a revenge attack for Obama’s drone assassination in June of the al-Qaedist murderer Abu Yahya al-Libi? Zawahiri himself put out the call for revenge the night before Benghazi! And Obama and Hillary want you to believe the annihilation of our Benghazi mission is because of an obscure propaganda video?
Be a patriot and vote against Obama. Your intellectual integrity depends on it.
Why does President Downgrade expect you to believe that the violence of the last three days has been caused by a YouTube clip of some anti-Muslim agitprop? Because he has no fear of insulting your intelligence. He knows that you will vote for him no matter how incompetently his Administration (and that includes Hillary’s State Department) has acted.
I am embarrassed for those who call themselves liberals and progressives but who are making a sacrifice of our American birthright to offend with our speech and believe as our consciences dictate.
We must replace Obama with an American who has America’s best interests at heart.
In his acceptance speech before the RNC last Thursday, Mitt Romney quoted Barack Obama’s 2008 promise that his election would “slow the rise of the oceans” —at which point he paused a full twelve seconds before finishing the quotation. This was a brilliant rhetorical gesture: to let the absurdity of such unmerited self-regard sink into the audience’s mind anew. Romney was asking us to consider choosing a man of deeds over a man of words. That’s what I’m doing.
Hippies, don’t let your intellectual pride compel you to make the same mistake twice. But if you don’t have the integrity to admit you were wrong the first time, you could at least have the decency to not vote this time.
Say, did Obamajesus ever get around to explaining why an invocation of executive privilege based “on principle” had to wait til the final hours before a contempt vote was taken against his attorney general to be made? That is to ask, if you genuinely believe that you have a right to cover up the serious lies your Justice Department told the Congress, why was the claim invoked so tardily? It should have been asserted ab initio —instead of looking like the deed of last resort that it actually is. Pathetic. What are these liars hiding?
I’ll bet we find out sooner than expected. Not as soon as the final confirmation on all those rumors of Harry Reid’s pederasty, but soon enough.
This is how the Obamareich’s re-election machine is being characterized —and I have no reason to doubt it. Do his followers have a problem with their idol burning through a billion dollars of crony contributions? I don’t hear much about it, if so. I think such a figure would only be morally repugnant if it were a Republican campaign.
I think the Election of 2012 is going to burn some bridges.
What argument can one make to someone who still supports Obama that can account for the emotional investment that such a person has in The One? It isn’t enough to list for him Obama’s many acts of cronyism, contempt, incompetence, and hypocrisy. It is too late for facts when defending Obama is defending one’s own political judgement and personal intelligence. Would an appeal to decency and love of country be enough to move an Obamaton to concede what ought to be conceded: that his statist ideology is destructive of the economic character of this country; that he is a law-breaking corporatist; that he is a campaign finance cheat and liar; that he is a hypocrite on civil liberties and warfare; that he is a vindictive narcissist?
No, the investment is too great. The racism inherent in the choice of voting for a man because of his race is too deeply held. The personal identification with this post-American agent of our dissolution is too complete. Democrats are prone to such personal idolatry (e.g., Obama, the Kennedys, FDR, Wilson, et al) and it reflects poorly on them.
But whatever it takes, the dominant narrative of a populist Obama who just wants what is fair and even and right for all must be resisted because it is false and it is dangerous. It is un-republican in the most literal sense.
I do not make idols of politicians. I do not understand those who do.
[...] this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.
Even after it happened, I could not believe that the American people would elect someone like Obama: an untested and media-created Marxist ideologue posing as a centrist. Right: a Chicago Democrat as the “post-racial” (whatever that term hopes to mean) Third Way. He is indisputably the Democratic Party’s revenge on the Union —this contemptuous liar with Lincolnian pretensions— in the form of a literal embarrassment of the country’s electorate as the ignorant partisans they are. How did it ever happen? Americans who love their country must work to deny this man another term in which to show his contempt for what makes us prosperous and free.
I’m glad Romney stepped it up on Gingrich tonight with the influence-peddling charge, but he probably didn’t gain a lot of ground from it. Still, Romney needs to stay mean and on the offense even if that’s playing against type.
The President had no need of such a venue tonight as a joint session of the Congress except to provide himself with the props of authority. His narcissism is boundless, as well as a decidedly un-republican menace to our society.
What did he say tonight that he hasn’t said in dozens of other equally insipid speeches? To insist on such a setting for such an unremarkable campaign spiel verges on an abuse of the privilege. This is Son of Stimulus with the usual horseshit narration.
Our nation’s economy will begin to recover once this Marxist bastard is out of office. Just as his nomination by the DNC in the summer of 2008 precipitated the Great Recession, his departure will surely mark the beginning of real hope and change.
“It is a great advantage to a President, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man. When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.” —Calvin Coolidge, The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge (1929)
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »