Friday, December 4, 2009
I guess if he shows up too early he won't be able to make an 'entrance'.
When the hell does he spend time pondering the major issues of our country? He's everywhere! Enough already!
The fact of the matter is that Obama’s speech was political in front of a military audience. If his goal was to muster the troops like a Commander & Chief is supposed to do, he failed. Once again, instead of a Commander & Chief, Obama was the Campaigner & Chief.
Never before has a speech by Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America’s new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric — and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.
One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama’s speech would be well-received.
Obama, known for his oratory skills fell completely flat. Or was it the teleprompters fault? Not only was the speech uninspiring, it was all over the place.
Just minutes before he took the stage, the gathered cadets were asked to respond “enthusiastically” to the speech. But it didn’t help: The soldiers’ reception was cool.
One didn’t have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama’s speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.
The West Point cadets acted with all the respect that they have been trained; however, with the nature of the speech and the more than lacking vigor that Obama used with this photo-op at West Point … how could cadets not use their time for better things like reading or sleeping. Frankly, it almost put me to sleep as well. He opens mouth and nothing comes out…….
Between those BIG EARS is nothing but AIR.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
He's talked about his "values." If you have values you don't trash your wife and kids by having affairs. If you're famous you have to remember that the night has a thousand eyes. "The little people" are cleaning up after you and they see it all.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
A COCKTAIL waitress has claimed she enjoyed a 31-month affair with Tiger Woods - as cops today revealed they will be charging the golf legend with careless driving.
Jaimee Grubbs has told American magazine Us Weekly she met Woods in Las Vegas in April 2007 and has voicemails and text messages proving her affair with the star, who married Elin Nordegren in 2004.
The magazine claims Grubbs, who says she was 21 when the romance started, has over 300 texts from Woods who was involved in a bizarre early hours car crash last weekend outside his £1.7million mansion.
The beauty, who recently appeared on VH1 show Tool Academy, has gone on to claim she's had 20 sexual encounters with the star
At West Point tonight, when Barack Obama formally announces he is sending tens of thousands more American troops to Afghanistan, he’ll be doing so against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party. Sending more troops will fulfill a key Obama campaign pledge, but it will also expose a deep rift in the party — and highlight its habit of dissembling on the war.
A Gallup poll last week asked Americans about four possible options in Afghanistan. Would they prefer to see the number of U.S. troops increased by 40,000, as top military commanders proposed?
Would they prefer to see the number increased, but by some smaller amount? Would they prefer the number remain unchanged? Or would they like to see the United States begin to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan? 57 percent of Democrats want to reduce the number of troops, and another 10 percent want to see troop levels remain the same. That’s 67 percent — two-thirds — of Democrats who want the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to go down, or at least go no higher. Which means two-thirds of Democrats likely oppose the president’s decision to send more troops.
And yet, in the 2008 presidential season, from the Democratic primaries to the general election, Democrats felt required to promise to step up the war in Afghanistan. Was it because the Democratic base that now opposes escalation supported it back then? No. A Gallup poll in August 2007 — in the midst of the Democratic primary race — found that just 41 percent of Democrats supported sending more U.S. troops to fight in Afghanistan.If the base didn’t support it, then why did candidates promise it? Because Democratic voters and candidates were playing a complex game. Nearly all of them hated the war in Iraq and wanted to pull Americans out of that country. But they were afraid to appear soft on national security, so they pronounced the smaller conflict in Afghanistan one they could support. Many of them didn’t, really, but for political expediency they supported candidates who said they did. Thus the party base signed on to a good war-bad war strategy.
“One of the things that I think is critical, as the next president, is to make absolutely certain that we not only phase out the Iraq war but we also focus on the critical battle that we have in Afghanistan and root out al Qaeda,” Obama said at a Democratic candidates’ debate in New Hampshire in June 2007. The war in Iraq, Obama continued, “is an enormous distraction from the battle that does have to be waged in Afghanistan.”
“There isn’t any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected,” said chief Obama rival — and now Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton at a debate in April 2008. “It has not gotten the resources that it needs.” Other top Democrats adopted the get-tough approach, at least when it came time to campaign. In September 2006, as she was leading the effort that would result in Democrats taking over the House and her becoming speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi said George W. Bush “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. “We had a presence over there the past few years, but not to the extent that we needed to get the job done,” Pelosi said. The phrase “took his eye off the ball” became a Democratic mantra about the supposed neglect of Afghanistan — a situation that would be remedied by electing ready-to-fight Democrats.But now, with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech. He had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.
You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth and remain coherent ; an example of political dyslexia which has afflicted the Democratic Party since its inception . This guy is the LAST GUY, to be the Commander in Chief. Remember who we're talking about. He began his Political Career in the living room of a man and woman, who used to set off BOMBS at Recruiting Stations, Police Stations, and the PENTAGON. He HATES our MILITARY. He hates them with every fiber of his being. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger. Khaleed Rashidi and The Black Panthers. THIS is who he is. THESE are his inspirations. And like them, he HATES our Armed Forces almost as much as he HATES this Country. It's not rocket science. SCUM hang out with other SCUM. And this 'THING' in the White House is a White Hating, Anti-Semetic, America Hating, MARXIST. Don't take it from me. READ HIS STUPID BOOKS. It's all right there, in Black and White. Like him.
President Obama to order 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in next six months, White House officials say.
more BS from the king of BS
During the Bill Clinton impeachment idiocy of 1998, many on the left said that if Clinton were removed from office, let it be for gutting welfare or for imposing sanctions on Iraq, and not l'affaire Lewinsky.
This squeaky-clean reputation has helped Woods become the richest athlete in history. His career course earnings are $92 million. When you factor in advertisements, corporate appearances and other off-course aspects of "Tiger Inc.," it makes sense that Tiger Woods is America's first athlete to reach billionaire status.As the saying goes, behind every great fortune is a great crime.
“Senior Administration officials tell ABC News tomorrow’s speech will include a new way of doing business that President Karzai is unlikely to welcome. Instead of U.S. funds going to Karzai’s central government as they do now, much of it will go to the provincial and district level and to specific ministries such as those devoted to Afghan security.
Investments will be based on performance, a senior Administration official told ABC News. And if Karzai continues to run a government that’s full of corruption and fails to provide basic services, he may find himself out of the loop entirely. *** The era of the blank check for Karzai is over.”
I hope Obama’s performance-based strategy works. Why not do the same with the American government?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t think he wants us to lose the war. but it looks as if he don't want to win it either.
I can’t see how he gives a damn about Afghanistan. He picks McChrystal and then promptly tosses him under the bus, along with our soldiers, backs up and runs over them a few more times. 116 soldiers died while his happy ass was out on the golf course “agonizing” about what he should do and convincing the stupid that he didn’t want to rush things.The “strategy” we get from his speech is that he’s sending over LESS than the minimum estimated to do the job so they can prepare to pull out, and maybe serve as Taliban targets, in 18 months just in time, conveniently, for an election. This has nothing to do with winning and everything to do with keeping the team-killing the bastards on the liberal douchebag left happy
Sometimes, the only way to win the fight with evil is to show up for it. And then kill the other guy, when he shows up.
Since we are in in Afghanistan, the Islamists certainly are there – to fight us. And as Islamists, are in need of being killed. (Not talked to, or “understood” and allowed to go on.)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Some people think it doesn't matter to the Far Lefties if they lose their seats or not so long as they pass what has been their life's goal; socialized medicine.
Congress had better wake up and smell the coffee. WE,the People, DO have the power to throw all of them out of office. Both Parties. If Republicans start helping this Bill to pass, they're OUT! We already have the Democrats marked for pink slips. I don't think they STILL realize how angry the American people are at them. It's going to really be a HUGE SURPRISE in 2010 when they are all out of a job
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tiger Woods is a public figure. As an internationally recognized sports star, a blue-chip spokesman and a worldwide celebrity, whether he likes it or not (and apparently he doesn't) Woods is a public figure. This isn't something that simply happened. Woods worked at it. He practiced all his life, focused and trained to be a winner. And then he developed his skills as a public persona, pitchman and marketeer.
To me, the story of this woman isn't the actual story. It's the persona of Tiger Woods, the "perfect human" he has been portrayed as - and perpetuated - and THAT has been blown to bits.
PS... Cops now say they have proof that he was hit with a golf club. The words Nike Forged Blade is embedded on his forehead!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
That fact that President B.O doesn't want to jump to any conclusions shouldn't surprise any true Americans. He also doesn't want to jump to any conclusions regarding his generals' recommendations for sending more troops to Afghanistan!
We have another terrorist attack on our nation and BO tells us not to jump to conclusions. I guess it is only ok to jump to conclusions when a white cop is involved. I hope we make through these next three years!
I've already concluded that Bill Ayers is a domestic terrorist! At what point will you conclude that he is one too? Mr. President...You're nothing more than a liar!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Where are you Obama??? Your lib/socialist friends jumped all over Bush for not immediately going to New Orleans after Katrina, but you're too busy giving "shout outs" to call on our troops? You could fly Air Force One to NY for a photo op, or for a date, but not to see our troops? You can't even make the commissioning of the USS New York. Golf game today? Or are you simply hiding behind your real agenda?
Don't rush to judgment on anything about the shooting. He spends 1 min 5 sec. talking about the shooting and ordering flags at half mast, he spends 5 min 7 sec talking about unemployment extensions, paid for by the stimulus package that how it's paid for as the funds dry up, just get more out of the funds in the stimulus yet spent. Good stimulating, way to create jobs. Incentives for small businesses to start, like what? Everything he has done up to this point has hurt the economy, Bush bounced back from the .com bubble, and 9/11 hijackings and destruction of the World Trade Centers. And he bounced back greatly, record low unemployment numbers and record economic growth. His downside was that he wasn't fiscally responsible with that growth
Sunday, October 25, 2009
by increasing the spending on our military, therefore making it stronger, Reagan FORCED the USSR to respond in kind
the USA had the industrial might, just like in WW2, the USSR didn’t
the USA had the government money to back up the orders for new planes, ships, etc-the USSR ran out of money
how long would the Wall have stood if Reagan hadn’t spent the billions on our military?
would Germany still be divided today?
I wonder when will the Gipper be properly honored by having streets named after him?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
1 year in office almost complete and we’ve had the WH turned into a political operation where campaign practices are the norm —you and I and probably other commenters here, have been around past WH Administrations and know that, until Obama, the real lever operators inside any Administration have been the policy wonks and professional managers –not the political hacks left over from the campaign. It’s the latter in Obama’s Camp, 24 x 7. How can you expect bipartisanship when the leadership team lives and breathes partisanship?
Partisanship is rife inside the Oval Office, skip the WH. In the first year we’ve had an attempt to start up a Nixonian Era Enemies List by some of the very people who might have been on the original list and know far, far better than to do something like this… a WH Office of Fishey Comments asking citizens to rat out opponents on the net… and all of these have the fingerprint of our most famous community organizer and Chicago Thug all over ‘em.
Obama could do all the things you ask him to do. On top of that, he could call for a real DOJ probe of vote corruption by ACORN… but he’s going to badly need them in the summer of ‘10 and ‘12, so no hope for change there.
Obama could call for the Congress to adopt tough anti-corruption measures to stop the wheeling and dealing of illegal campaign contributions and bribes that have become the hallmark of a truly successful Democrat legislator these days… but then, Obama will need some of those illegal conduits of cash for his ‘12 campaign, so no hope for change there.
And Obama could do a lot more to make good on his campaign pledge to end partisan bickering… but then, he’d need to lead by example and that’s about as likely as NancyPelosi or JoeBiden skipping a BoToc treatment. It’s not in his character. There should be no hope for change on that score. Sorry.
Monday, October 5, 2009
This is not a partisan game, it’s just a piece of advice. Don’t read here what you want to read here, read the post without assuming it’s a partisan screed.
I mean to be patronizing because you make no effort to understand points I make an effort to make. Maybe this will help you understand the post. And given how much time you spend on the blog while regularly missing the points of our posts, a reading lesson does seem to be in order.
Let’s start with the title. What Barack Obama can learn from Winston Churchill. That signals that it’s about Barack Obama, the incumbent president of the United States and the lessons he could learn from a certain fellow named Churchill who. when he served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, helped bring that nation from the brink of defeat at the hands of the evil Nazis to one of the greatest victories in the history of mankind.Mr. Obama’s recent speech and how he referred to his predecessor in his Afghanistan speech with that word (by dint of the preposition “of” preceding it) in the genitive (or possessive) case. Then, I actually introduce that predecessor with whom you, like your hero Mr. Obama who can do no wrong, are obsessed. Note that word “eschews;” I use it to distinguish Mr. Obama’s attitude for the attitude of Mr. Churchill, the attitude I believe he should emulate. He has alas not adopted one of those qualities which helped make Mr. Churchill great. And I’m indicating that I’m about to show how Mr. Obama is not alone among the members of Administration is playing the blame game.