NRA opposes gun-grabber's appointment to head the BATFE

Oh joy, just what we need, a gun-grabber appointed by Obama to head the BATFE.

The NRA strongly opposes President Obama’s nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).  Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities.  This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers.  Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a “recess appointment,” in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly elected U.S. Senators.  

Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) “Gun Violence Reduction Project,” a “partnership” with the Joyce Foundation.  Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels.  Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.

The IACP report, generated with Traver’s help, called on Congress to ban thousands of commonly owned firearms by misrepresenting them as “assault weapons,” as well as calling for bans on .50 caliber rifles and widely used types of ammunition. The report also suggests that Congress should regulate gun shows out of existence and should repeal the privacy protections of the Tiahrt Amendment—all efforts strongly opposed by the NRA and its members. 

Traver also participated in an extremely deceptive NBC Chicago report (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Assault-Weapons-Surge-in-City-69620227.html) in which he referred to “the growing frequency of gang members and drug dealers using heavy caliber military-type weapons” and described them as if they were machine guns:  “Pull the trigger and you can mow people down.”  Traver and his agents provided the reporter with a fully automatic AK-47, with which she was unable to hit the target.  He then said that stray bullets are “one of the main problems with having stuff like this available to the gangs.” 

As the Agent-in-Charge of Chicago’s BATFE office, Traver knows that fully automatic firearms are not available through normal retail channels—the opposite of what was implied in the report.
An agency involved in the regulation of a fundamental, individual right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution should not be led by an individual with a demonstrated hostility to that freedom.  For that reason, the NRA strongly opposes Andrew Traver to head the BATFE and urges President Obama to withdraw this ill-advised nomination.

 

What's Reagan, Bob Hope, Johnny Cash and Obama say to us?

Gotta order me one of these t-shirts for those days when I'm too grumpy to even talk.

The World's Longest Dither seeks a 'Compromise' war plan

Bill Kristol at The Weekly Standard Blog gives us an update on the world's longest dither as President Obama and his "military experts" continue "developing a new strategy" for the war in Aghanistan. Meanwhile, Gen. McChrystal and the troops continue the fight short-handed.

The McChrystal review was done by August 1st. It is now the end of October.

According to today's Washington Post ("Obama seeking options on forces; President looks to send fewer additional troops"), we'll get a decision by the end of November. That's four months. And it's evident that the review at this point is being driven entirely by White House political concerns. 148 American soldiers have died while the president holds seminars.

It's really outrageous.

There are, though, comical aspects to the Post story.

One is that Army chief of staff George Casey, a stubborn opponent of the Iraq surge at the end of 2006, is using this excuse to oppose an Afghanistan surge: "The Army is particularly concerned that soldiers who spend less than 18 months at home between combat tours do not have enough time to train for high-intensity tank warfare."

Just where are we going to fight that kind of war in the very near future?

Another is this: "But opinion among members of Obama's national security team is divided, and he now appears to be seeking a compromise solution that would satisfy both his military and civilian advisers."

Huh? Who are those "civilian advisers?" Secretary of Defense Gates is with Generals McChrystal and Petraeus, and (I gather) so too are Secretary of State Clinton and Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke -- all the "civilian advisers" who have real responsibility for the situation. But Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel have political concerns -- so Obama is trying to find a "compromise" that would "satisfy" them too.

Sometimes, in political and public policy, compromise is a good thing. But it's not a way to win a war. Especially when the "compromise" is between what your own military commander judges, based on an extensive review, he needs, and what your political hacks want.

You didn't think Obama was going to interrupt his golf game to make a decision, did you?

You might be 'dithering' over Afghanistan if the WaPo is more decisive

You might be a redneck if your mama can cuss out a cop without taking the cigarette outa her mouth ... and you might be a President dithering endlessly about whether to send needed troops to fight the war in Aghanistan if even a Washington Post columnist says we need more troops there.

David Ignatius says exactly that following his recent trip to Afghanistan, which I might point out President Obama not only hasn't done lately, much less consult with the general in charge there.

So what should Obama do? I think he should add enough troops to continue the mission he endorsed in March to "reverse the Taliban's gains" and improve security in Afghanistan's population centers. I don't know whether the right number is the roughly 40,000 that Gen. Stanley McChrystal has recommended, but it should be the minimum number necessary. The additional troops will come at a steep political price, at home and abroad.

Sir Charles Krauthammer shares an old Soviet joke to characterize Obama's dithering strategy.

WASHINGTON -- Old Soviet joke:

Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.

"Niki, I'm dying. Don't have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble."

A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: "Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe."

A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: "Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe."

Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: "Prepare three envelopes."

In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn't blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad -- everything but swine flu.

It's as if Obama's presidency hasn't really started. He's still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to "long years of drift" in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.

Krauthammer also sums up Obama's choices on Afghanistan as being remarkably similar to the right decision that his much-hated predecessor President George W. Bush made on Iraq.

In Iraq, the heavy footprint -- also known as the surge -- dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.

That's where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.

In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.

In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.

Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.

He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.

The "heavy footprint vs. light footprint" debate is essentially the Pentagon, the generals in charge of our troops and even Defense Sec. Bill Gates vs. "Generals" John Kerry and Joe Biden.

Rich Lowry at National Review calls it the City Mouse, Country Mouse Strategy.

Reading the tea leaves, it appears that defense, state, and the intelligence community has concluded that the Taliban is dangerous and it can't be fought effectively without something like McChrystal's 40,000 troops. The politicos, though, seem to want to turn the process on its head. The original idea was to come up with the strategy and ends first, then decide on what troop levels are necessary. The political aides seemingly want to come up with the most politically palatable troop number — say splitting the difference at 20,000 — and then ask what strategy can be supported with that number. The White House has given the impression of wanting to rig the process against McChrystal, but of failing as the facts — reflected in the positions of defense, et. al — lean the other way.

God save our nation and especially our troops in harm's way while Obama endlessly dithers.

Obama whiffs hardball, plays basketball and dithers on war

Can Obama play hardball with Iran and Russia? Robert Kagan asks the question in the WaPo this morning and gives us a scorecard on how well our Diplomatic Leader is doing thus far. It don't take a rocket surgeon to know the score on that as Obama is Oh-fer-zip.

Is the Pope Baptist? About as much as our rookie President is ready for the big leagues as our Ditherer-In-Chief makes a photo-op visit to Dover Air Force Base to salute the war dead arriving from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile back at the White House where the "debate" over developing a "new strategy" for the war in Afghanistan drags on amongst the "military experts" on staff, R. Emmett Tyrrel reports a new controversy has arisen.

These are vexed times. The country is at war on two fronts. Rogue states are edging toward acquiring strategic nuclear weaponry. We have been through a very serious recession from which we may not emerge into the bright morn of economic health for years. The dollar is frail. The future of national health care, finance and corporate governance is in doubt. Yet that is not all. Over at The New York Times, an issue that continues to torment the bien-pensants is ... Well, let me quote the first sentence of the front-page tocsin that began the controversy Oct. 25: "Does the White House feel like a frat house?"

The proximate cause for this troubling query was that President Barack Obama had hosted "a high-level basketball game with no female players."

Seriously. And speaking of females, one of my feminine heroes, young Hannah Giles, asks a few vexing questions for the so-called mainstream media, who is still studiously ignoring the ACORN scandal she exposed on camera. Here's just a couple of her "suggestions" to the media.

• Baltimore- Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?

• San Bernardino- The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where ACORN worker Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won’t want to work for us? Or when we talked about making money off of clients who would physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?

I'd like to say more, but I gotta go to work. God save our nation and our troops because Obama won't, can't and apparently don't even have a clue how to, even if he wanted to. And he don't.

You might be 'dithering' if the Europeans show more guts

Like Jeff Foxworthy's signs that you might be a redneck, you might be "dithering" while Afghanistan burns if even the Europeans are more committed to that war than Obama is. Jamie Fly at The Weekly Standard blog points out this absurdity in NATO Defense Ministers and UN Official Back McChrystal Before Obama

Now, just as the president is publicly agonizing over what the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan should be, some European leaders seem willing to consider making increased commitments to Afghanistan. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is considering increasing the size of the German contingent in the country when the deployment’s mandate is renewed later this year, something that is nothing short of amazing given how publicly unpopular the German presence in Afghanistan is. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced last week that he was sending an additional 500 troops to the country.

These increased commitments appear to be based on a recognition that a properly resourced counterinsurgency effort is the only way to achieve success in Afghanistan. The New York Times reported yesterday that “NATO defense ministers gave their broad endorsement Friday to the counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan laid out by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.” Kai Eide, the UN special representative for Afghanistan attended the meeting and said “additional troops are required,” also telling the defense ministers that “this cannot be a U.S.-only enterprise.”

...The White House took offense at Vice President Cheney’s statement this week that the president was “dithering” on Afghanistan. Friday’s NATO defense ministerial should put this issue to rest -- even the Europeans have acted with more fortitude than our president.

Thank God for Dick Cheney and Fox News. They keep pointing out the obvious truths about our "dithering" President. Sooner or later, the voters will realize the emperor has no clothes. I'm just praying a miracle will happen and Obama will finally do the right thing and not leave our troops in Afghanistan twisting slowly in the winds of defeat.

Oh for the good 'ol days of LBJ and the Vietnam War

Never thought I'd look back fondly at the Presidential administration of Lyndon B. Johnson. The much-maligned LBJ was a crook who started stealing elections when he ran for class president of his junior college back in Texas and refined his technique over the years but never changed.

But at least he was a President who backed the troops while they were at war. LBJ did micro-manage the military to the point of actually picking out the bombing targets and setting ridiculous rules of engagement that virtually guaranteed we would lose that war. But at least he did provide the troops with the funding to fight, despite the ever-dropping polls back home on that unpopular war.

Now we have another war on which polls are being charted daily, as if popularity has something to do with whether our troops should be fighting terrorists who want to destroy our nation. And now we have a President in office who sniffs the wind on every issue to decide which way to go.

And President Obama also has a lapdog media with the sole exception of Fox News, which is solemnly reporting daily polls about the popularity/unpopularity of the war on terror. I almost choked when I read the lead of The Washington Post story this morning on that farce.

As President Obama and his war cabinet deliberate a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, Americans are evenly and deeply divided over whether he should send 40,000 more troops there, and public approval of the president's handling of the situation has tumbled, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Obama's "war cabinet"? What a crock. You have a grand total of one cabinet member, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has the stones to stand up for our military and urge the President to support the war in Afghanistan and give the general Obama handpicked and put in charge, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the surge in troops he has asked for. The rest of the cabinet is lined up solidly behind White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advising Obama to leave the troops slowly twisting in the wind while he abandons the war on terror as politically inexpedient.

Somewhere in between LBJ's micro-managing a war and Obama abandoning one under way while he endlessly dithers to "deliberate a new strategy" there's gotta be a happy medium. We need a President who will give the troops what they need to fight and let the generals in charge develop and implement strategy. Oh wait, we had a President like that. George W. Bush.

How to rob the military and appease dictators: 3 easy lessons

If I didn't already believe 2010 would be a good time to throw the bums out in Congress, a news item on how Senators have robbed our wartime guns and ammo budget for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan would really tick me off. I was already ticked and now I've moved up to pissed off.

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

It's only $2.6 billion, which is chump change for Senators, but it's the principle of the thing that really pisses me off, $20 million to honor the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who never saw a war he liked and never saw a war protester he didn't like? What the hell has that got do with defense?

I'm mad as hell and I'm going to tell everybody I know it's time to clean out the D.C. pig sty.

And speaking of Teddy Kennedy and the peaceniks, Wesley Pruden reports today on the recent adventures of Peacenik No. 1 and Peacenik No. 2 now in power, Obama and Hillary, and how their adventures with the big, bad Russians are working out. Suffice it so say, not too well.

The Russians succeeded in putting Mr. Obama and the Americans in their place. Nikolai Patrushev, the chief of the Presidential Security Council, manufactured an occasion while Mrs. Clinton was in Moscow to warn that Moscow reserves the right to make "a pre-emptive nuclear strike" against both small and large enemies.

In an interview with Izvestia, the important Moscow daily, he said Russian officials are examining "a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent." In situations critical to national security, he said, "options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded." Even regional or "local" wars will be included in the new strategy, expected to be official policy in December.

A willingness to use any or all weapons, if the time and place is right, is nothing new, of course. If the stakes are high enough everybody will use everything, and only fools object. The significance of these remarks, which were certainly calculated for effect while Mrs. Clinton was in town, is what they tell about how the Russians regard the toughness of Barack Obama, the noble peacenik with a prize to prove it, and whether there is any "there" there.

Mrs. Clinton and her acolytes at the State Department, ever eager to seek the softest way to say nothing, tried to put a nice face on her visit to Moscow. The United States, Russia and China are "closer than before" on their policies regarding Iran's nuclear-weapons program, Mrs. Clinton told a radio interviewer. She seemed to be taking care not to say that actual positions are closer, just that everyone understands those positions: Russians tough, Americans soft.

And to make a long post even longer, I can't leave this topic without quoting Sir Charles Krauthammer, who sums up the Obama-Clinton Doctrine of International Appeasement.

Well, at nine months, let's review.

What's come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.

What's come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama's shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn't moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it's pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

What's come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? "The settlement push backfired," reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have "arguably regressed."

And what's come from Obama's single most dramatic foreign policy stroke -- the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection.

But maybe not gratuitous. Surely we got something in return for selling out our friends. Some brilliant secret trade-off to get strong Russian support for stopping Iran from going nuclear before it's too late? Just wait and see, said administration officials, who then gleefully played up an oblique statement by President Dmitry Medvedev a week later as vindication of the missile defense betrayal.

The Russian statement was so equivocal that such a claim seemed a ridiculous stretch at the time. Well, Clinton went to Moscow this week to nail down the deal. What did she get?

"Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions: Clinton Unable to Sway Counterpart." Such was The Washington Post headline's succinct summary of the debacle.

Note how thoroughly Clinton was rebuffed. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared that "threats, sanctions and threats of pressure" are "counterproductive." Note: It's not just sanctions that are worse than useless, but even the threat of mere pressure.

It gets worse. Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."

But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?

Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.

Maybe in 2010 and 2012, we the voters can put some adults back in charge of our nation. But God help us until then because the children in charge now are giving away our future daily.

Krauthammer: 'Cheney is winning' on terrorist torture issue

Dr. Charles Krauthammer takes a look at the Cheney vs. Obama scrum and concludes "Cheney is winning" on the issue of torture on terrorists, citing the dramatic turnaround of the 9-11 terrorist leader who is now leading CIA seminars on the inner workings of Al-Qaeda terrorism plans.

Obama and Congress invent new dance: 'The Slide'

David Brooks is the sole conservative on the Noo Yawk Times editorial staff. Which means his conservative credentials are roughly as suspect as the virtue of a piano player in a whore house.

But when Brooks points out what he calls "The Obama Slide," and he ain't talking about a new dance, it's sorta like a Jeff Foxworthy sign that you might be a redneck. When Brooks says Obama might be in trouble, you can bet your sweet bippy BHO is wading into deep doo-doo.

By force of circumstances and by design, the president has promoted one policy after another that increases spending and centralizes power in Washington.

The result is the Obama slide, the most important feature of the current moment. The number of Americans who trust President Obama to make the right decisions has fallen by roughly 17 percentage points. Obama’s job approval is down to about 50 percent. All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast.

Anxiety is now pervasive. Trust in government rose when Obama took office. It has fallen back to historic lows. Fifty-nine percent of Americans now think the country is headed in the wrong direction.

That's the bad news for the Obama White House. Then Brooks notes that the political outlook for the leftwingnut Democrat leadership in Congress is even worse.

The public’s view of Congress, which ticked upward for a time, has plummeted. Charlie Cook, who knows as much about Congressional elections as anyone in the country, wrote recently that Democratic fortunes have “slipped completely out of control.” He and the experts he surveyed believe there is just as much chance that the Democrats could lose more than 20 House seats in the next elections as less than 20.

There are also warning signs in the Senate. A recent poll shows Harry Reid, the majority leader, trailing the Republican Danny Tarkanian, a possible 2010 opponent, by 49 percent to 38 percent. When your majority leader is down to a 38 percent base in his home state, that’s not good.

The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach.

Sorta reminds me of the old adage of giving a fool enough rope to hang himself. The leftwingnut Democrats (AKA "Progressive Moderates") have taken power and in their moment in the spotlight have demonstrated they are roughly as progressive and moderate as Attila the Hun.

I for one can't wait for 2010 for voters' revenge on Congress and in 2012 for a new President.

Dick Cheney's 'voice in the wilderness' speaks out on Obama

Thank God for Dick Cheney. As one of my journalism betters, James Kilpatrick, said, "Sometimes you've got to call a spade a damned shovel." And Dick Cheney is virtually the sole voice from the right speaking up and saying what President Obama is doing is dangerous for our nation.

Obama's 10 Commandments just slightly different than God's

Stole this from The Patriot Depot website because I agree wholeheartedly that President Obama is obviously governed by a different set of rules than many of the rest of us, particularly us Bible believers. The Patriot Depot says they've been watching and have figured out what Obama's top 10 rules are, and it ain't the 10 Commandments that God gave Moses on Mt. Sinai.

After observing Obama on the campaign trail and during his first six months in office, we have concluded that our President lives and governs according to his own set of “Ten Commandments.” They’re certainly NOT the Ten Commandments you learned in Sunday School. In fact, many are the direct opposite! To prove that our conclusions are correct, you will find a link to source documentation for each commandment on the Patriot Update web site.

The text on the front of the T-shirt reads:

The Ten Commandments According to Obama

I. Thou shalt have no God in America, except for me. For we are no longer a Christian nation and, after all, I am the chosen One. (And like God, I do not have a birth certificate.) SOURCE

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, unless it is my face carved on Mt. Rushmore. SOURCE

III. Thou shalt not utter my middle name in vain (or in public). Only I can say Barack Hussein Obama. SOURCE

IV. Remember tax day, April 15th, to keep it holy. SOURCE

V. Honour thy father and thy mother until they are too old and sick to care for. They will cost our public-funded health-care system too much money. SOURCE

VI. Thou shalt not kill, unless you have an unwanted, unborn baby. For it would be an abomination to punish your daughter with a baby. SOURCE

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery if you are conservative or a Republican. Liberals and Democrats are hereby forgiven for all of their infidelity and immorality, but the careers of conservatives will be forever destroyed. SOURCE

VIII. Thou shalt not steal, until you've been elected to public office. Only then is it acceptable to take money from hard-working, successful citizens and give it to those who do not work, illegal immigrants, or those who do not have the motivation to better their own lives. SOURCE

IX. Thou shalt not discriminate against thy neighbor unless they are conservative, Caucasian, or Christian. SOURCE

X. Thou shalt not covet because it is simply unnecessary. I will place such a heavy tax burden on those that have achieved the American Dream that, by the end of my term as President, nobody will have any wealth or material goods left for you to covet. SOURCE

If you're looking for a t-shirt to make a statement, here's one. The Patriot Depot has more too.

Obama vs. 'W' on the mound: Which one throws like a girl?

You be the judge. Which Prez can throw a strike to home plate and which one throws like a girl?

Iranian mullah rejects Obama's back-channel peace message

Now we know why President Obama was silent for three long days while protesters died in the streets of Tehran, Iran. He thought his so-called silver tongue would work magic with the Iranian mullahs and bring about world peace. Today we learn Obama sent a letter to the head mullah himself prior to the election that sparked the current protests, offering some sort of peaceful overture, according to a Washington Times exclusive report this morning. And Ayatollah Khamenei bit a bloody chunk out of Obama's extended hand of peace.

In a lengthy sermon Friday that reaffirmed the disputed re-election of Mr. Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei made an oblique reference to a letter from the U.S. but embedded the reference in a diatribe against purported U.S. interference in Iranian affairs.

"The American president was quoted as saying that he expected the people of Iran to take to the streets," Ayatollah Khamenei misquoted Mr. Obama as saying, according to a translation by Mideastwire.com.

"On the one hand, they [the Obama administration] write a letter to us to express their respect for the Islamic Republic and for re-establishment of ties, and on the other hand they make these remarks. Which one of these remarks are we supposed to believe? Inside the country, their agents were activated. Vandalism started. Sabotaging and setting fires on the streets started. Some shops were looted. They wanted to create chaos. Public security was violated. The violators are not the public or the supporters of the candidates. They are the ill-wishers, mercenaries and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists."

Obama sounded outright indignant at yesterday's news conference when he commented that the Iranians had "misquoted" him. Why Obama is surprised shows what a rank amateur he is with not only foreign affairs -- supposedly his strong suit due to his "multi-cultural background" -- as well as domestic affairs. (So how's Obama's economic stimulus plan for working for you so far? Same here. It sucketh.) The Iranians and all the rest of the Arab world have been blaming all the ills of the universe on the Jews since Abraham's sons Ishmael and Isaac began feuding, so why should anybody expect them to do any different now? The only modern update to that ancient feud is adding CIA spies in particular and the United States and Western allies into the mix.

The Washington Times offer a sober reassessment of U.S. vs. Iran relations in today's editorial.

Engagement is dead

Even if the regime in Tehran decides for some reason to extend an unclenched fist, President Obama would be shaking a bloody hand. The human-rights violations shown on America's computer screens make it impossible for the president to engage in some 1970s-style detente with Iran. Even the realists realize that is now unrealistic.

The diplomatic climate necessary for the Obama administration's engagement policy is gone. The subtle signaling dance of the last few months is impossible now. The Obama team's original timetable, calling for progress by the end of the year, has been overcome by events.

Iran's bomb now can't be ignored

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons now worries more Americans than ever. If the regime is willing to be this cruel to its own people, could the American soldiers or Israeli citizens living within reach of Iran's missiles expect any mercy? United Nations nuclear overseer Mohamed ElBaradei said last week that he had concluded the regime was seeking atomic weapons to send a message to the rest of the world: "Don't mess with us." With the frailty of the regime broadcast worldwide, its sense of insecurity will have increased and, with that, the need to have a nuclear insurance policy. It is extreme folly for the United States to continue the official charade that the Tehran regime is not actively seeking such weapons. Politicizing this intelligence must end. The Obama administration should take this opportunity to demand an immediate halt to Iran's bomb program.

The time has come to face the Islamic Republic without the comfortable blindfolds we have worn over the past few decades. The reality of Neda Soltan, dead with her eyes open, should open our eyes too.

Perhaps Neda's death will not be in vain. Perhaps Obama will wake up and smell the coffee burning on his "multi-cultural background" rangetop. But I suspect he's much too vain and egotistical to ever admit his rookie mistakes and start acting like the leader of the free world.

God help the people of Iran and God save America and Israel from this gathering storm.

Day 200: Obama's approval rating finally goes negative

Where's the 200-day headlines about President Obama's approval rating going into negative territory? There were none and I missed it until I ran across the latest chart and stole it from Gateway Pundit.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama (see trends).

And over at the Contentions blog at Commentary, there's another poll report that Israelis are finally waking up and smelling the coffee about whose side Obama is on. And it is not Israel's.

The White House is atwitter after a new poll revealed a dramatic shift among Israelis regarding the administration’s policies towards Israel. The poll, conducted by Smith Research and commissioned by the Jerusalem Post, shows that only 6% of Israelis consider Obama “pro-Israel,” while 50% see him as “pro-Palestinian.” Compare this with the same poll from a month earlier, in mid-May, which had 31% responding that the Obama Administration is pro-Israel, and just 14% saying pro-Palestinian. What has changed in the last month? Not much, other than Obama’s dramatic Cairo speech, which described Israel as the product of centuries of Jewish suffering and the Holocaust; and Netanyahu’s no less dramatic response, which described Israel as the product of thousands of years of Jewish attachment to their ancient homeland.

There is a political calculus for the President here: As much as American Jews may have supported Obama without caring too much about his record on Israel, at the end of the day, American Jews tend to care deeply about Israel, and their sense of what’s happening with Israel is highly informed by what Israelis think (or, at least, Israeli elites). In other words, so dramatically lopsided a view of American policy towards Israel will not be lost on American Jewish voters. Midterms are not that far off.

What's going on? Is the kool-aid wearing off? Are voters finally waking up from the November nightmare? I sure hope so. One reason for the shift in polls -- in addition to the biggest reason, which is Obama's own performance, or lack thereof, as President -- is the law of unintended consequences. Obama got elected on the "Bush did it!" strategy. And since taking office, he has continued the "Bush did it!" excuse for all the ills of the world and his own administration.

And guess what? Former Bush administration officials, President George W. Bush himself and even his mild-mannered father, President George H.W. Bush, have finally responded after former Vice President Dick Cheney showed the way. All I can say is it's about time.

The Washington Times tells us who's on first among the Bush administration members who have finally found their voice after Cheney led the charge.

It's not just former Vice President Dick Cheney.

As former President George W. Bush offered his first public - though veiled - criticisms of his successor's administration last week, a growing number of his senior aides and advisers are also speaking up to defend Mr. Bush's record and take on the Obama White House.

A few of them are marrying their insider's policy knowledge with modern technology to critique, in detail, President Obama's economic program.

The day Mr. Obama left for the Middle East earlier this month, former Bush official Tony Fratto launched a broadside against the White House claim that it had "created or saved" 150,000 jobs with economic-stimulus money.

"What causes the jaw to drop is not just the breathtaking deception of the claim, but the gullibility of the Washington press corps to continue reporting it," Mr. Fratto, an economist who served in the Treasury Department and the Bush White House press office, wrote on a blog run by CNBC, where he is now a paid contributor.

When Mr. Obama returned from his trip, the jobs "created or saved" claim was front and center. The White House message of the day - that the stimulus would "create or save" 600,000 more jobs in the next 100 days - ran into a public relations buzz saw.

Perhaps I was wrong when I predicted President Obama's "Bush did it!" strategy would work well enough to see him through his first term and into his second. I sure hope so. C'mon 2012! And perhaps we won't have to wait for the inauguration of President Sarah Palin's first term to see some "change you can believe in." Midterm elections in 2010 would be a fine time to take the reins of power from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and return it to the sick-and-tired voters.

Obama issues 'foreceful statement' on murders in Iran

Tongue-tied President Obama finally found a few words for the murderous regime clinging to power in Iran while people die in the streets, seeking freedom.

Then, when his "forceful statement" is recorded, he goes out for ice cream.

I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr., who he quoted, went out for ice cream right after his historic march for freedom across the Birmingham bridge. Or maybe he went to jail, I forget.

Whatever. This is just one more sign that the rookie in the White House really has no clue about what it means to be the President of the United States and the leader of the free world. If the faces at Mt. Rushmore were made of something other than stone, they would all be shedding tears today. Pray for the people of Iran.

A scary bedtime fairy tale for your grandchildren

Once upon a time, long, long ago in a land far away, a Democrat candidate for President was honest. He announced early in the campaign, "I will raise your taxes." For those who have forgotten about those olden days, or were born since, the candidate was a man named Walter Mondale. Who?

Most people have forgotten about Walter Mondale, but he was Vice President under President Jimmy Carter, perhaps the most forgettable President of recent history, so a memory lapse is understandable.

Mondale also suffered the indignity of running against a Republican nominee who was not only wise but also had a terrific sense of humor and a great gift of comedic timing, Ronald Reagan. And Reagan was wise enough to recognize an error when he heard Mondale's tax-hike promise and countered with a promise of his own that he would not raise taxes if elected.

In the first televised debate, Mondale put in an unexpectedly strong performance, questioning Reagan's age and capacity to endure the grueling demands of the presidency (Reagan was the oldest person to serve as president — 73 at the time — while Mondale was 56). However, in the next debate on October 21, 1984, Reagan effectively deflected the issue by quipping, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

In the election, Mondale was defeated in a landslide, winning only the District of Columbia (which has never been won by a Republican candidate) and his home state of Minnesota (and even there his margin of victory was less than 3,800 votes^[4]), thus securing only 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. The result was the worst electoral defeat for any Democratic Party candidate in history, and the worst for any major-party candidate since Alf Landon's loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

So the joke was on Mondale, the Democrat who told the truth about his plan to raise taxes. But enough of fairy tales. Wait, let me tell one more. Once upon a time there was a Democrat candidate for President who promised again and again that he would not raise taxes. The people believed him and he got elected. Now some 120 days since, reality has begun to set in.

The Red Phone Rings... and Obama has no answer

The red phone rang at 3 a.m. in the White House, just as Hillary said it would, and nobody was home. Or maybe President Obama did answer when the brown stuff hit the fan in Iran. Then muttered "WTF?" and hung up and rolled over the went back to sleep. That deafening silence we've heard from the White House about the stolen election in Iran is rookie Obama repeating "WTF?!"

As Victor Davis Hanson notes, Obama answered the phone and said "I vote present."

But Wesley Pruden says there's a possibility something good may come from this SHTF incident.

Silver linings are deceptive and often hard to find, but that might be a tiny sliver of silver in that dark cloudbank over Iran. Barack Obama got notice from the election results that his tongue, golden and honeyed though it may be, is no match for reality.

If Iranian voters had thrown Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into the street, the American president would have assumed that he was the One who did it, and the American press would have led the hosannas for the messiah from the south side of Chicago. Just a few more speeches, a few more respectful bows toward Mecca, and all the rough places would be made smooth and plain. But now even Mr. Obama must wake up and smell the tear gas.

The prospect that a victory by the Iranian moderates would cure what's wrong in the Middle East was a hookah dream from the start, a tale of the Arabian night indulged by those unable to bear the sight, sound and responsibility posed by reality. Iran is not ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but by the head ayatollah, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and his pigsty of brutal mullahs. Mr. Ahmadinejad never misses an opportunity to pay craven tribute to these unelected agents of harsh Islamic rule, always with a bending of the knee and a kiss for every outstretched holy hand.

And what did Obama finally say when he got through muttering "WTF?"

There was all but silence from the White House, where Mr. Obama said he was pleased with the "robust debate" in Iran, proving only that he's easily pleased and eager to get back to what he does best, wrapping appeasement of the enemy in the sticky warmth of mere words. The "robust debate" Mr. Obama admired featured the opposition candidate smeared as both inspired by Hitler and a creature of the Jews, with skeptical newspapers shut down and Internet sites closed. Foreign observers were forbidden to watch and listen to the "robust debate." Given that nobody voted secretly - voters are easily identified and the naughty ones often punished - the 33 percent who voted for the opposition were brave, indeed.

"Robust debate" indeed. Sorta like the robust debate that occurred on Tiananmen Square, complete with blood, guts and tears and dead protesters in the streets of Iran. The international incidents have already come in bunches, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and more and so far all we've heard from the White House is the same old "blah, blah, blah... I'm the greatest."

Pruden says maybe this will be the wakeup call that transforms the rookie into a real president.

But Mr. Obama will have to do better than admire "robust debate" and hope that once the evildoers hear the sound of his voice they will straighten up and fly right. Iranians, like everybody else, have a right to elect whomever they want, and even to steal elections without outside interference. The reality that President Obama must deal with goes beyond whether the election was free and fair. The mullahs who guide the hand of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have made it abundantly clear that they have an agenda, and intend to enforce it with the clenched fist Mr. Obama imagines he can unclench with a teleprompter.

Some people in the West - particularly in Washington - are tempted to dismiss the Iranian president as a clown and a fool, given to writing checks ("Israel must be wiped off the map") he could never cash. But these skeptics are the fools. President Obama must now rise to the occasion to deal with Iran as it is, and not as he wishes it to be. This is the job he said he wanted.

Right now, I suspect Obama is saying the same thing Bill Clinton did when he got elected. He said he felt like a dog who chased a car and caught it and then asked himself, "What do I do now?"

I suspect what's happening in Iran is the mullahs are stuck in the 14th century and had no idea that in the age of youtube and the Internet, you can't completely muffle your own people. Perhaps Obama will turn on the TV in the White House and "smell the teargas" as Pruden said.

I'm so ticked at Obama's idiocy I can't write a headline

If you're among my handful of faithful readers (3 or 4 total last time I tried counting heads) you may have noticed that when Obama gets on a roll, I hush. I guess I'm afraid if I verbalize what I'm feeling I'll ruin my keyboard with the contents of my stomach. This so-called leader of our nation literally makes me queasy when he starts strutting around like a skinny backyard bully.

Case in point, his current apologize-for-ugly-Americans-in-Arabian-lands tour. And after his "historic" speech in Cairo (it must be historic because the empty-headed blonde on Fox Morning News called it that) our first non-veteran president will be traipsing over to France for D-Day celebrations where he'll very likely make a speech that will make me queasy all over again.

As usual Wesley Pruden's analysis of the Cairo speech is spot on.

Now it's on to Normandy, to apologize to the Germans. It's the least an American president can do after the way the Allied armies left so much of Europe in rubble. There's a lot of groveling to do for what America accomplished in the Pacific, too.

This prospect should appeal to Barack Obama, who relishes the role of Apologizer-in-Chief. Apologizing for manifold sins against civilization is not always easy, but it's simple enough: "Blame America First." You just open a vein and let it flow. In Cairo, Mr. Obama opened an artery.

America, unlike the president, is guilty of hubris, arrogance and cant. All that must change. "Change" is what the smooth-talking Chicago messiah says he is all about...

Big talkers don't know when to stop when they're on a rhetorical roll because they can't remember which facts are actually facts and which "facts" they're making up. Mr. Obama even attributed the Golden Rule, from the teachings of Christ, to "every religion." In an interview before the Cairo speech, he called the United States one of "the largest Muslim countries," based on its Muslim population, and he later put the number of Muslims in America at 7 million, more than even most Islamic advocacy groups claim. The most reliable estimate, by the nonpartisan Pew research organization, is 1.8 million. That would make the United States the 48th "largest" Muslim nation, just behind Montenegro. Mr. Obama often has trouble with numbers, big and small; he once boasted of having campaigned in 57 states.

Mr. Obama described himself as "a Christian, but," and offered a hymn to the Muslim roots he insisted during the late presidential campaign he didn't have. He invoked his middle name, "Hussein," as evidence that he was one of "them." The Obama campaign insisted last year that anyone who uses the middle name was playing with racism...

Mr. Obama's revelation of his "inner Muslim" in Cairo reveals much about who he is. He is our first president without an instinctive appreciation of the culture, history, tradition, common law and literature whence America sprang. The genetic imprint writ large in his 43 predecessors is missing from the Obama DNA. He no doubt meant no offense in returning that bust of Churchill ("Who he?") or imagining that a DVD of American movies was appropriate in an exchange of state gifts with Gordon Brown. Nor did he likely understand why it was an offense against history (and good manners) to agree to the exclusion of the Queen from Saturday's commemoration of the Anglo-American liberation of France. Kenya simply routed Kansas.

The great Cairo grovel accomplished nothing beyond the humiliation of the president and the embarrassment of his constituents, few of whom share his need to put America on its knees before its enemies. No president before him has ever shamed us so. We must never forget it.

Amen, brother Pruden. I for one will never forget what this traitorous idiot in the highest office is doing to my beloved country. How many days left until Jan. 20, 2012?

And as bad as sucking up to Arab enemies is, Obama tops that by declaring himself the enemy of the only tried and true friend our nation has in the Middle East, Israel.

Charles Krauthammer points out that choice bit of hypocrisy from the Cairo speech.

In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo Thursday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations -- Haj Amin al-Husseini in 1947, Yasser Arafat in 2000, Abbas in December 2008 -- rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.

In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders -- Fatah and Hamas alike -- built no schools, no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, no institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.

Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.

Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.

I just hope and pray there's enough of America left standing to survive when 2012 arrives.

Obama Mockfest goes from Iran to North Korea to Gitmo

Mocking our feckless President is an amazingly easy thing to do these days. Despot leaders in North Korea and Iran do it almost daily with nukes or missiles or both. Wesley Pruden, editor emeritus of the Washington Times, joins in the daily mockfest this morning on that topic.

Two of the peace-loving republics formerly known as the Axis of Evil threw a frightful scare into anyone paying attention Monday, with North Korea exploding a nuclear bomb as powerful as the one that destroyed Hiroshima and Iran telling Barack Obama to get lost (and take his teleprompter with him).

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he wouldn't accept an invitation to freeze work on his own nuclear weapon and he's not interested in talking to Mr. Obama or anyone else about it. But not to worry. The United Nations Security Council postponed its afternoon tea to hold an "emergency session" to consider options for dealing with developments in Korea. The world is considerably less worried about Iran, since Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to be mostly interested in only killing Jews...

The temptation to deride the reaction from Western capitals, couched as it is in the prissy language of the diplomacy so beloved by Mr. Obama, is irresistible, not only for its pretentious prissiness, but because the evildoers have heard it all so many time before. The presidents and prime ministers of the West need at minimum new speechwriters to project their pretense of toughness, their affectation of strength. They invite mockery at home because they strike neither fear nor caution in the hearts of enemies they insist on regarding as just friends they haven't made yet.

The latest test is a reminder that North Korea "is going it alone as a nuclear power," the executive director of the Center for Korean-America Peace, a Pyongyang front, told the daily Guardian of London. "North Korea doesn't need any talks with America. America is tricky and undesirable. We are not going to worry about sanctions ... we don't care about America and what they say."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offered his own mockery of naive intentions, and showed no signs of the unclenched fist that the dear leader in Washington sees in his future.

"The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," Mr. Ahmadinejad told reporters Monday in Tehran. But he made an offer that Mr. Obama will find difficult to refuse, proposing to debate the president and his teleprompter at the U.N. "regarding the roots of world problems." But no talks about the Iranian bomb. "Our talks [with the major powers] will be only in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues, and nothing else."

And David Brooks at the Noo Yawk Times has remembered what it means to be an op-ed writer, taking an opposing editorial view to the kneejerk leftwingnuts on the editorial and news staff with his own bit of mockery that's so far over the top it's clear over into seeing the actual truth.

There is nothing so inspiring as public service, so I’ve been incredibly moved over the past few weeks to watch squads of corporate executives come to the White House so President Obama could announce that he was giving away their money...

These events have heralded a new era of partnership between the White House and private companies, one that calls to mind the wonderful partnership Germany formed with France and the Low Countries at the start of World War II. The press conferences and events marking this new spirit of cooperation have been the emotional highlights of the administration so far.

These events usually begin when the executives gather in the Oval Office, where they experience certain Enhanced Negotiating Techniques. I’m not exactly sure what the president does to inspire the business leaders’ cooperation and sense of public service, though those who remember the disembowelment scene in “Braveheart” will have a general idea.

Then the president leads the executives out onto the White House lawn for the announcement ceremony. Often, the president will still be carrying the riding crop and the pliers used in the private negotiation. He moves to the microphone while the executives take their pre-assigned places behind him, the jingle of their leg shackles blending with the dulcet tones of spring. I thought one hospital executive was so moved by the occasion that he had slipped into catatonic shock, except that he was blinking “Save Me! Save Me!” in Morse code to his shareholders.

Finally, Cal Thomas offers a sobering rebuttal to Obama's plan to close Gitmo's terrorist prison.

President Obama wants to put at least some of the Guantanamo detainees in maximum-security prisons in the U.S. Assuming an ACLU lawyer doesn't win their release, these suspects might convert others in prison to their cause in order to recruit them for jihad should they be let out. Some of those New York terror suspects were converted to Islam and radicalized while in prison.

A more mature and sobering vision was offered by former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has emerged as the Republican Party's missing backbone.

In a well-crafted and powerful rebuke to President Obama's call for treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemy combatants, Cheney said, "Throughout the '90s, America had responded to these (terrorist) attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis ... with everything handled after the fact -- crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed. ... 9/11 made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat -- what the Congress called 'an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.' From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place."

It worked. History will show this approach protected our "values" against those who would destroy them. If there is another attack, President Obama won't be able to blame it on the shortsightedness of the Bush-Cheney administration.

Wouldn't it be doubly ironic if one of the soon-to-be-released Gitmo terrorists committed a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, just as several of the already released terrorists have returned to the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan? Obama wouldn't be able to blame that on Bush-Cheney.

I'm not saying I look forward to another terrorist attack. But I am saying the half-baked, kneejerk leftwing plans of this administration are not making America safer. Far from it.