The Battle of Victims: Pumping-Up to WIN Because #It’sOnUs

In yet another case of cops acting stupidly, White House police arrested an unarmed man of color who was just out for an evening walk:

“The location of the arrest — the White House — is not acceptable to the Secret Service and the response will be reviewed.”

Ya think? Maybe this will make Big Guy reconsider the value of a really big fence and a secure border.

In other racist news, the NFL dustup is shaping up to be a tough battle of all the usual victims: young black men vs. women and children.

Here is the lineup of the alleged NFL perpetrators, and as you can clearly see you’d have to be blind, not just colorblind, to miss the racist overtones here. Keep in mind that these young black men are themselves victims of America’s racist hate: 

left to right from the top, Dwyer, Washington, Peterson, Rainey, Spievey, Rice, Hill, Sands, Jefferson, McDonald, Hardy, Washington. Note that Washington made the lineup twice, as he seems to be indicating, for 2 separate offenses that resulted in his suspension - although one of them was just for failing his drug test…4 times. I’m assuming steroids.

So while on the one hand this is clearly a racist witch hunt, on the other - as the vast majority of the alleged offenses involve domestic abuse - we’re also dealing with the Republicans’ War on Women.

Who will win the ultimate Battle of the Victims? All I can tell you is that all the smart money is on the War on Women at this point:

Because we’ve got a new buzz-phrase: #It’sOnUs; complete with its own website. Because it requires a sitting (Democratic) President to tell us that drugs and alcohol may lead to sex that you don’t remember consenting to.

Come to think of it, it’s probably a good idea for NFL players to knock off the mixing of drugs and alcohol too: can you say Roid Rage?

So take note ISIS: we may not be at war with you yet, butt just wait until after we’ve “juiced” :

100% Michelle Obama approved for school lunches

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network

No Hope, No Change.

Well, the have-nots triumphed over the haves yesterday in Scotland.

Despair: the neighs have it

In what may prove to be a blow to lo-fo voting for a lifetime, the Scots all managed to educate themselves enough to cast their vote for their pocketbooks. In what turned out to be a coalition of the “haves” – who figured independence meant they’d have to support all the “have-nots” in Scotland – and the “have nots” – who figured they may not continue to get all their freebies if they voted to cut the cord that binds – the Scots rejected independence by a 55% – 45% margin.

In all, 85% of voting age Scots managed to get out the vote. Unlike here, where only 50-54% of eligible voters actually bother to turn out – including the un-dead who wake every 4 years to make their voices heard too. So while the people of Scotland will continue to argue about this vote for years to come, at least the vast majority of them actually voted, unlike in America where voting is no longer a requirement for shooting your mouth off about what’s happening in Washington.

It probably won’t make Scots who voted “yes” feel any better to know that Big Guy thinks they were on the wrong side of history, as proclaimed in his official tweet against independence (big surprise):

Because, you know, freedom is so overrated. Anyway, some Brits took exception to BHO’s tweet because, uh, you know…the American War of Independence 1775-1782! I don’t think the tweet technically qualified as a protocol breech (our protocol manual needs to be updated to include tweeting) but it did cause a bit of a stir.

I guess Scots just aren’t what they used to be:

And the good news? As I mentioned, there were very few lo-fo voters here; the takers voted to stay with Mother England and her economic heft while current and future makers voted for independence. Thereby demonstrating once again the Achilles heel of democracy:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. – Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scotsman

 

We feel your pain, Wallace.

Linked By: iOwnTheWorld’s Cardigan, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network

#IWasForItBeforeItWasn’tMyIdea

For those who think Big Guy exhibits tendencies towards malignant narcissistic personality disorder (characterized by superficial glibness and charm, a grandiose sense of self worth, pathological lying, cunning manipulative practices, lack of remorse or guilt for problems created, a callous lack of empathy, and a failure to accept responsibility for their own actions) – and who doesn’t? – this historic montage is for you: (be sure to watch to the end)

Odd, isn’t it? Here we are two years later, we still don’t know what “war” means and we’re still equivocating over the definition of “boots on the ground.” Butt at least we might finally know what Romney meant by “tragedy” @BarackObama 

Although there’s still some controversy surrounding that term too.

What Romney thinks “tragic” looks like: (#ISIS #ObamaIsOurBitch)

What our Commander “and” Chief thinks “tragic” looks like: (#MalignantNarcissist #IDidn’tDoThat #SomeoneElseDidThatForMe)

The reverse hockey stick graft clearly demonstrates the approaching global tragedy: Obama Cooling. Hopefully the oceans won’t recede much further.

Boy, talk about your existential threats.

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network

“My orders are Boots/No Boots in the War/No War…and if you don’t like it KMA”

I note we are still immersed in the “boots/no boots” controversy in the “war/no war” kinetic military action we are efforting against ISIS.

The General said “boots”

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,”

While the Commander in Chief clearly said “no boots”

Depends on what the meaning of “boots” is; and “on the ground.”

Press secretary Josh Earnest said the president has been “very specific and precise” about not using ground troops in Iraq or Syria, and downplayed Dempsey’s remarks as pertaining only to a “hypothetical scenario.”

Because as CIC, he doesn’t really have to follow his Joint Chiefs of Staff advice you know. They’re just advisors.

So, the  “no boots” votes have it; as clarified by our JV State Department Harfie:

And don’t make me tell you again.

"The president has been very clear we will not have troops on the ground in combat roles, period," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "That is an underlying principle of our actions in Iraq.

Because, as I said, Big Guy doesn’t really have to pay any attention to his generals’ recommendations.

On a different war front though, we did commit boots to the ground:

That’s correct: Barry committed booties-on-the-ground to wage our “international” War on the Plague. Because healthcare is a human right.

And because that includes everybody:

And because Obamacare is working out so well on the home front, we’ve decided to expand its coverage to our African brothers and sisters.

So what do you say we suit up all of our little footed-pajama boys and send them over to wage Obamacare against Africa’s plague of Ebola?

Would you like some hot chocolate and fuzzy booties with that Ebola virus?

So now that we have a strategy for the War on Pestilence, what do you say we get back to the drawing board to work on strategies against the other 3 Horsemen of the Apocalypse; war, famine, and death? Or at least war.

Linked By: BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network

Clean up on Aisle WON

Prescient photo from 2010 h/t Instapundit

First, Michael Goodwin’s NY Post article:

He is sinking fast and could soon pass the point of no return. In fact, it may already be too late to save the SS Obama.

The whole second term has been a string of disasters, with the toxic brew of his ObamaCare lies, middling economic growth and violent global breakdown casting doubt on the president’s stewardship. Six years into his tenure, nothing is going as promised.

And then this heresy, from the NYTimes - which is practically our house organ!

It was the time of unraveling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?

And after answering his own question by blaming barbarians at the gate and other world leaders like Putin, we finally get to the kernel of this argument:

It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself…The nation’s leader mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.

And then the morning comes:

Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.

What a mess! And where is Rhambo when we need him? Oh, right, Big Guy sent him packin’ a few years ago.

We need a professional fixer, stat. We need…Ray Donavon:

Ray –allegedly – works with a corrupt network of journalists, cops, and lawyers to cover up major problems of the rich and famous up to and including murder – allegedly.

I don’t know him personally, butt I’ve been told he can fix anything. I’m thinking maybe we should just put him on retainer, assuming the Clintons haven’t already lined him up for their side of the story.  

Wow! What are the odds that both Bill and Hill would be charged with “obstruction of justice” – in separate cases.

  Sometimes the captions write themselves

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network

Let’s not have this ever again…

Since Big Guy didn’t bother to copyright his ISIS/ISIL speech, David Cameron decided to use it when he addressed the citizens of the United (temporarily) Kingdom following the beheading of British hostage David Haines.

BHO: “ISIL is not ‘Islamic.’ No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim,”

DC: “They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.”

BHO: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.”

DC: "Step by step, we must drive back, dismantle and ultimately destroy Isil and what it stands for."

BHO: “As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” 

DC: The Prime Minister said that "we have to confront this menace", Mr. Cameron added that this will not involve direct British involvement in fighting.

So far then, we can confirm that both Britain and the United States are engaged in some type of counter-terrorism effort against ISIS and/or ISIL. Butt we still don’t know if we are actually at war. Or not.

Despite the conflicting messages I’m going to say “NO WAR” since Big Guy went golfing again this weekend. And as everyone knows, the Commander in Chief never goes golfing during a war.

 

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!

William Shakespeare, Hamlet
The soliloquy continues…

 

Let’s not have this ever again…

Linked By: BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network

How’s that “Opposite World” Working Out For You?

When your entire foreign policy has been based on asking “what would Bush do?” and pursuing the opposite, the recent turn of events must be fundamentally unsettling.

One of them knows what the other doesn’t

Mr. Obama’s fixation on not being Bush is the only thing the Obama team knows or understands. It is also keeping them from being able (or willing) to admit the truth about a world spiraling out of control. No matter who is standing behind a podium these days, you get the distinct feeling that no one in our federal government knows what’s happening, and all their energy is spent trying to keep their stunning ignorance a secret. - Tammy Bruce

And it makes it difficult to clearly formulate a convincing new War/No War policy. After all, when you’ve been on record as many times as Big Guy saying he was elected to “end wars, not start them” it’s hard to eat all those opposite words in one serving.

Like, for example, in 2007 when junior Senator Barack Obama blamed Congress for giving the president the power to wage war that he later abused:

“The American people weren’t just failed by a president, they were failed by much of Washington. By a media that too often reported spin instead of facts… And, most of all by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that voted to give the president the power to wage war that he uses to this day. Without that vote, there would be no war.”

Of course, you don’t have to eat them yourself when the New York Times is willing to do it for you:

The White House believes that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war — and not just the 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda — provides a legal justification for President Obama’s air campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the Obama administration said Friday.

The White House has not issued a formal analysis of its legal thinking, but the disclosure adds to an evolving public understanding of its theory about the basis for the strikes against ISIS.

When the bombing began in August, Mr. Obama’s letters to Congress cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief. On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he already had legal authority for the campaign, but would welcome specific congressional approval, too, and administration officials for the first time cited the 2001 authorization to use military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks for the campaign.

Well bless his heart, Barry has discovered that “Opposite World” doesn’t always actually work in what we call the “real world.”

After years of an Obama foreign policy that existed simply to be the opposite of whatever Mr. Bush did or would do, Islamist terrorism and Middle East turmoil have exploded. As Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has noted, the Islamic State is “a force and a dimension that the world has never seen before.”

The left, led by Mr. Obama and his sycophantic supporters, truly believed all the world’s ills were the result of America’s arrogance and intrusion. (snip)

Instead, we are seeing the opposite. Islamist terrorism has increased; with our absence, Iraq has fallen apart; with Mr. Obama’s promised retreat, Afghanistan is in turmoil. The isolationist weakness telegraphed by Mr. Obama to the world has, shall we say, not ushered in “peace in our time.”

In the midst of the chaos now sweeping over the Middle East and knocking at the door of Eastern Europe, there is one critical revelation: The rotten fruit of Mr. Obama’s Anti-Bush doctrine has proved that America has never been the problem. Instead, it has everything to do with a sociopathic commitment by Islamist savages to the notion of a worldwide Islamic caliphate. -Tammy Bruce

Okay, now you’ve gone too far: of course America is the problem.

And I have proof that we are living in opposite world:

From the front, jail garb:

From the rear: blonde princess-in-waiting:

h/t: American Digest

And yes people, fairy tales really can come true…

Just remember, every fairy tale has a “fairy” and one man’s fairy tale is another man’s nightmare:

The problem of becoming president with pre-conceived ideas is, the world always has a different plan. Presidents are presented with unique and usually unexpected sets of circumstances to which they must respond. This is why it’s a good thing to elect people to office who articulate a specific overall vision (beyond “hope and change”) and make clear a set of principles that can then be applied in a specific way to whatever unique crisis may present itself. - Tammy Bruce

Linked By: Larwyn’s Linx on Doug Ross@Journal, and Raptor Ruthy on Israeli-Arab Conflict Board, and BlogsLucianneLoves, and Free Republic, Thanks!

Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network