Archive for the ‘Professional, Not’ Category

It pained me today to read this bit of news:

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will make a “major speech” on the 2016 White House race on Thursday, Fox News reported on Wednesday.

Fox News said there was no sign that Romney was set to enter the 2016 race, citing people close to the 2012 White House hopeful.

The speech is scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. EST. <Huffingtonpost.com, link>

Like most people, I expect that Mitt might be crazy enough to throw his hat into the ring for the Republican nomination tomorrow, no doubt spurred on by the Republican establishment’s horror that Donald Trump is on track to win the nomination.

Although I thought in 2012 that Mitt Romney would have made an excellent president, the fact that he could not take his gloves off and rip apart Barack Hussein Obama’s character, his track record, and everything he stands for, disqualifies him from being the future Republican nominee.

You see, Mitt, you can’t just be “right for the job”, you have to WIN the job, and to do that you need to be willing to fight for it.

And you were not willing to fight for it in 2012, when you should have easily beaten a man who destroyed American health care while Wall Street got away with murder (not to mention running guns to Mexican drug cartels and then covering up such treachery).

Barack Obama destroyed your character in Ohio for nearly a year while you said and did nothing in return.

You think you have the stomach to take on Criminal Hillary Clinton in the general election?

No, you don’t. You are weak against Democrats who are willing to play dirty, and if you can’t win the job then you should not be the nominee.

Please stay at home, Mitt. You had your chance, and you let a man who obviously hates the United States beat you.

If you can’t beat Obama after such a disastrous first term, then you can’t beat anybody.


Read Full Post »

Most of you have seen the 2006 clip of then-Senator Barack Obama speaking on the Senate floor about why it was the Senate’s duty to block George W. Bush’s supreme court nominee based on ideological grounds, but I couldn’t resist posting it.

In addition, here is a recent press conference during which Obama is asked about how his current position (‘Confirm my nominee even though I’m a lame duck’) squares with this 2006 obstructionist position.

His non-answer is hilarious, and disgusting.

Caught red-handed, mr. Obama.



Read Full Post »

Jeb Bush is still looking for a way to turn around his last-place standing among legitimate presidential contenders, and it seems the Paris attacks have emboldened him on national security.

Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush is calling for a broad military buildup and says the U.S. armed forces have been left ill-prepared to defeat the Islamic State, blamed for the Paris attacks that killed at least 129 and wounded hundreds more.

The former Florida governor is projecting himself as a potential commander in chief able to handle such challenges, as his presidential bid tries to gain traction in a primary campaign likely to be shaken up after the Paris attacks. <Yahoo news, link>

I don’t believe for a minute that Jeb Bush would be a tough commander in chief.

Furthermore, Jeb Bush believes in open borders, and there can be no national security when millions of people can enter your country whenever they want to.

Big government, open borders, amnesty for illegals. The guy belongs in the Democrat party, let’s face it.

clinton bush


Read Full Post »

Those interested in history know that newspapers used to be openly, heavily partisan (particularly in the 19th century); the appealing notion of there being a moral imperative to be objective when reporting is a relatively modern concept (here is an interesting link on this subject: The Fall and Rise of Partisan Journalism).

We all know the reality in today’s times: supposedly objective media are most certainly slanted to the Left or Right.

What amuses me this morning is the dueling coverage of Donald Trump’s appearance last night on the Stephen Colbert show.

Trump Colbert

YahooTVHere is a headline from Yahoo TV:


PoliticoHere is a headline on the same topic, from Politico.com:


So which is it?

As I read the transcript of the back and forth, what jumped out at me is how reserved Trump was — a stark contrast to his bombastic style — and how this allowed him to avoid the many traps Colbert had set for him. Trump fell into exactly zero of those traps, and came off looking strong and yet more diplomatic than he generally has been able to conduct himself.

Here is one example of Colbert’s attempt at provocation and outright mockery, in which Colbert:

…suggested an addition to Trump’s famous wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico: adding “a moat filled with fire.”

To which Trump replied that:

…he wants it to also have “a big fat door,” so that immigrants “can come into the country — legally.” 

Note that Trump’s measured response brushes off the incendiary nature of the question / accusation.

Keep it unlocked for anyone who wants to enter, if believe in open borders.

Keep it unlocked for anyone who wants to enter, if believe in open borders.

What’s clear to me is that Trump has been working on modulating himself and his messages, and is succeeding in doing so. This simple reference to a “big fat door” in the border wall that would allow legal immigration while keeping out illegal immigration is exactly the right policy any sane nation should have. Such a policy is sound and impossible to oppose, unless you believe in open borders — come one come all, with no papers and no accountability. (And if you are one of those people, please send me your home address because I’d like to come over and help myself to all the food in your refrigerator once a week, thank you very much. Make sure to keep the door unlocked at all times, because in your mind, barriers should not exists between us, right?).

Let’s see what Politico.com meant by saying that Colbert “bested” Trump. Here is a recounting of the back and forth at one point:

Colbert then went on offense on the subject of money, one of Trump’s fortes.

“The Republican Party has been a big pusher of the idea that money is speech, and you’re a $10 billion mouth,” jabbed the host.

“That’s another way of looking at it,” Trump responded diplomatically.

“The other people out there want some of your money. Ted Cruz was on last night. He asked me to ask you if you’d give him a billion dollars,” said Colbert, referencing a Monday night interview with the Texas senator.

“Sounds good. Sounds good. He’s a good man, actually,” said Trump of his Republican rival, who has publicly aligned himself with the frontrunner even as most of the rest of the field has condemned him.

Trump sounds presidential during this exchange — measured yet brutally effective in letting Colbert’s cutting comments go off a cliff into nowhere.

The appearance was a home run for Trump in my opinion. He expended little energy while neutralizing a bombastic opponent.

And so the Politico.com headline is garbage, and they should be ashamed of themselves.


Read Full Post »

Many of us remember a scary day in 1983 — the height of the Cold War — when the Soviets shot down a 747 passenger plane in cold blood, killing all 269 aboard.

Korean Airlines flight 007 strayed off its course and into Russian airspace and a military fighter jet fired a missile at the defenseless aircraft, causing it to crash and kill everyone.

The Evil Empire: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

The Evil Empire: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

My internet search for stories on the incident returned an amazing article written about a year ago — long before the current Russian surface-to-air missile destruction of another passenger aircraft, this time in Ukraine. It was written by Thom Patterson of CNN, and it starts like this:

(CNN) — The idea that Soviet fighter jets would shoot down a Boeing 747 airliner seems shockingly unbelievable. Two-hundred sixty-nine innocent people died in a largely forgotten Cold War attack that took place exactly 30 years ago this weekend. <CNN, link>

Remember, Patterson was writing these words last year, before the current infamy.

This comment of his mirrors my own feelings at the time: he lists a series of events that demonstrated the escalating tensions between the USSR and USA in 1983, and then says the following:

But it was the downing of KAL 007 that opened many eyes to the Cold War’s widening wave of darkness, its increasing uncertainty and its growing threat to peace.

Exactly — it was a feeling that if the Soviets could order a military fighter jet to down a 747 full of civilians, then they were capable of any atrocity, and who knew what they might do next.

The Soviet pilot who took the fatal shot had this to say in 1998:

“I could see two rows of windows, which were lit up,” Soviet pilot  told CNN in 1998, describing the 747’s telltale double-deck configuration. “I wondered if it was a civilian aircraft. Military cargo planes don’t have such windows.”

He was ordered to shoot it down anyway.

But as we all know, we and the rest of the free world had Ronald Wilson Reagan in the White House, a man who had spent much of his adult life fighting Communism and its evils and who, as President, was facing down our violent enemy in a direct and fierce manner.

Patterson goes on to say the following, and it made me laugh:

Then, something amazing happened: The Cold War ended. Somehow, the world had made it through.

YES, Thom, something “amazing” happened — Ronald Reagan.

And NO, Thom, the world didn’t make it through “somehow”; it made it through on Ronald Reagan’s iron back and spine.

Savior of the United States, and the world.

Savior of the United States, and the world.

His bold American defense buildup, opposed by many Americans who had become accustomed to living in fear and without belief in our moral superiority as a nation, and his posturing that we would build a missile defense shield that would tip the scales of mutually-assured-destruction in our favor, caused the USSR and its leadership to crumble from within as its economy failed to keep pace with our own.

And so here we are in 2014.

Ronald Reagan is long gone, may he rest in peace, and today we have Barack Hussein Obama hurriedly digging America’s grave. Commentators are lately saying that mr. Obama is disengaged and mentally “checked out”, but look a little closer and you can easily see the truth: he is as busy as ever smashing the foundations of our nation, including our role in the world, our military, our economy, our national balance of accounts, our sovereignty, the rule of law, and the Constitution itself.

As shocking as it was that Reagan could actually end the Cold War, liberate all of eastern Europe, and bring about the physical collapse of the Berlin Wall, it is equally shocking that a man such as Barack Obama could ascend to the presidency without any qualifications and then do such terrible things that the Cold War would actually come back to haunt us and the world.

How do we know the Cold War is back?

The Russians just shot down another civilian airliner:

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday that the evidence indicates that a Russian missile was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 <Yahoo News, link>

And so here we are in 2014: the Russians just killed 298 innocent people and are being led by Vladimir Putin, a man with no fear of the likes of Barack Obama, what with his toothless “red line” in Syria and his “leading from behind”.

If you voted for Barack Obama, the destroyer, in 2008 and / or in 2012, I ask you now whether you honestly believe the world would be falling apart the way it is had Mitt Romney been elected president.

As for 2016, we must dare to dream that the American electorate will recover its sanity and elect a candidate who loves his country, at least.

Obama playing golf again while America burns

Read Full Post »

It is amazing to ponder just how bad this president has been, not only for our beloved country, which he continues to hammer without mercy, but for the entire world.

On his watch, much of the Arab world has shifted towards dictatorship and repression; the Middle East is engulfed in violence designed to either destroy Israel or bring about a Caliphate that “extends to Rome“; Russia has gone from ally to global instigator against our interests (and invaded Ukraine); Afghanistan has been lost to terrorists; Iraq has been lost to terrorists; American diplomats have been murdered and dragged through the street; the five most senior Taliban commanders have been freed (directly by mr. Obama himself); terrorist bombings have increased in frequency; and China has been allowed to challenge western interests without opposition.

He spoke about various international crises today in what many concluded was a lame attempt to shift the focus away from his latest moral crime — almost 60,000 children that were escorted through Mexico and right across our southern border, as if our nation is fit to handle such a man-made disaster.

Of the international crises, he said the following <Yahoo Finance, link>:

None of these challenges lend themselves to quick or easy solutions, but all of them require American leadership.

Uh oh — they require American leadership? Well in that case, each crisis will get immeasurably worse, because Barack Obama does not believe in American leadership and refuses to provide it.

And did you catch his latest abandonment — rejection, really — of his responsibility, when he reminds us that there are “no quick or easy solutions”? This is what a man does when seeks to avoid accountability, something mr. Obama does better than anyone on earth.

Meanwhile, here at home, U.S. GDP plunged an astounding 2.9% in the first quarter of 2014; the banks are still too-big-to-fail and still allowed to gamble with reckless abandon (untouched by the Obama-Dodd-Frank sham reform); the national debt has exceeded $17 trillion in a $14 trillion economy; and tens of millions of people are losing their health care insurance and being offered plans that are more than twice as expensive.

If Barack Obama were trying to be a good president, this would all drive him to resign, so painful would it be to watch, day after day, the burning wreckage that he, the arsonist, has wrought.

But no, he does not resign, because he has a different goal: to destroy America and the western tradition, both of which he was raised to hate.

By this measure, he is a great success, and may one day be honored in a new “Mount Rushmore” that celebrates tyranny instead of freedom.


Read Full Post »

Barack Obama is increasingly distinguished by his status as the World’s Biggest Liar, a man you can’t trust at all.

In recent days he decided to stage some political theater by surprising our troops in Afghanistan, which is something George Bush did a few times (I recall fondly the Thanksgiving turkey visit by W).

But Obama’s inept, or treasonous administration (take your pick) exposed the identity of a top CIA officer in the field of Afghanistan.

(CNN) — The White House accidentally revealed the name of the CIA’s top intelligence official in Afghanistan to some 6,000 journalists.
The person was included on a list of people attending a military briefing for President Barack Obama during his surprise visit to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan on Sunday.
Analyst: Outed CIA agent will be pulled White House blows cover of CIA operative
It’s common for such lists to be given to the media, but names of intelligence officials are rarely provided. In this case, the individual’s name was listed next to the title, “Chief of Station.” <source>

Liberal news outlets like to reference the so-called outing of Valerie Plame during the Bush years, but Ms. Plame worked at the CIA in Langley Virginia and I would imagine could be seen walking into and out of CIA headquarters in broad daylight Monday through Friday.

The CIA confirmed her status as a NOC or “deep cover officer” and remarked that she was talented and highly intelligent, but decried the fact that her career featured largely US-based Headquarters service, typical of most CIA officers. <source>

How covert can you be when you are walking in and out of CIA headquarters in broad daylight?

But Obama outed a CIA station chief in the field.

Is this man fit for office?

In the United States the answer is No.

In various foreign countries who are enemies of the United States the answer is yes.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »