jwgmpi search results

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

He thinks we're too dumb.

Hey Folks,

He thinks we're too dumb.

Don says: In December I read an editorial in the NY times. According to the article, to the best of my memory, Obama's failures and problems can be attributed to those who voted for him. "Those who voted for him did so on a false assumption that he could live up to their extreme high expectations." In other wards, they put too high expectations upon a man could not deliver what he promised. I ask, who raised those expectations? Could it be a man who thought his rhetoric and platitudes, could sway the common (simple) folk. A man who believed that he was a gift to the common people; that they would blindly follow him. A man, even today, believes that he is the "One" and cannot understand why anyone doubts him. A man who does not understand reality, who is out of touch with the American people.

The citizens of VA, NJ, and MA have spoken, we need to follow their lead. 2010 elections are our chance to affect real change.

Don

Mark Steyn

January 23, 2010 12:07 A.M.

Too Much of a Bad Thing

Who's panting for Obama speech number 412? Exactly no one.

So what went wrong? According to Barack Obama, the problem is he overestimated you dumb rubes' ability to appreciate what he's been doing for you. "That I do think is a mistake of mine," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."


But you schlubs aren't that smart. You didn't get it. And Barack Obama is determined to see that you do. So the president has decided that he needs to start "speaking directly to the American people."

Wait, wait! Come back! Don't all stampede for the hills! He only gave (according to CBS News's Mark Knoller) 158 interviews and 411 speeches in his first year. That's more than any previous president - and maybe more than all of them put together. But there may still be some show out there that didn't get its exclusive Obama interview - I believe the top-rated Grain & Livestock Prices Report - 4 a.m. Update with Herb Torpormeister on WZZZ-AM Dead Buzzard Gulch Junction's Newstalk Leader is still waiting to hear back from the White House.

But what will the president be saying in all these extra interviews? In that interview about how he hadn't given enough interviews, he also explained to George Stephanopoulos what that wacky Massachusetts election was all about:

"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,"

said Obama. "People are angry and they're frustrated, not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years."

Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they're voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. Boy, I can't wait for that 159th interview.

Presumably, the president isn't stupid enough actually to believe what he said. But it's dispiriting to discover he's stupid enough to think we're stupid enough to believe it.

So who's panting for that 412th speech? Not the American Left. As Paul Krugman, the New York Times's "Conscience of a Liberal," put it: "He Wasn't The One We've Been Waiting For."

Not the once-delirious Europeans, either. As the headline in Der Spiegel put

it: "The World Bids Farewell to Obama."

And not any beleaguered Democratic candidates trying to turn things around in volatile swing states like, er, Massachusetts. The Barack Obama who showed up last Sunday to help out Martha Coakley was a sad and diminished figure from the colossus of a year ago. He had nothing to say, but he said it anyway. As he did with his Copenhagen pitch for the Olympics, he put his personal prestige on the line, raised the stakes, and then failed to deliver. All those cool kids on his speechwriting team bogged him down in the usual leaden sludge. He went to the trouble of flying in to phone it in.

The most striking aspect of his performance was how unhappy he looked, as if he doesn't enjoy the job. You can understand why. He ran as something he's not, and never has been: a post-partisan, centrist, transformative healer.

That'd be a difficult trick to pull off even for somebody with any prior executive experience, someone who'd actually run something, like a state, or even a town, or even a commercial fishing operation, like that poor chillbilly boob Sarah Palin. At one point late in the 2008 campaign, when someone suggested that if Governor Palin was "unqualified" then surely he was too, Obama pointed out as evidence to the contrary his ability to run such an effective campaign. In other words, running for president was his main qualification for being president.

That was the story of his life: Wow! Look at this guy! Wouldn't it be great to have him . . . as community organizer, as state representative, as state senator, as United States senator. He was wafted ever upwards, staying just long enough in each "job" to get another notch on the escutcheon, but never long enough to leave any trace.

The defining moment of his doomed attempt to prop up Martha Coakley was his peculiar obsession with Scott Brown's five-year-old pickup:

"Forget the ads. Everybody can run slick ads," the president told an audience of out-of-state students at a private school. "Forget the truck. Everybody can buy a truck."

How they laughed! But what was striking was the thinking behind Obama's line: that anyone can buy a truck for a slick ad, that Brown's pickup was a prop - like the herd of cows Al Gore rented for a pastoral backdrop when he launched his first presidential campaign. Or the Iron Chef TV episode featuring delicious, healthy recipes made with produce direct from Michelle Obama's "kitchen garden": The cameras filmed the various chefs meeting the first lady and then picking choice organic delicacies from the White House crop, and then for the actual cooking the show sent out for stunt-double vegetables from a grocery back in New York. Viewed from Obama's perspective, why wouldn't you assume the truck's just part of the set? "In his world," wrote The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, "everything is political and everything is about appearances."

Howard Fineman, the increasingly loopy editor of the increasingly doomed Newsweek, took it a step further. The truck wasn't just any old prop but a very particular kind: "In some places, there are codes, there are images," he told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. "You know, there are pickup trucks, you could say there was a racial aspect to it one way or another."

Ah, yes. Scott Brown has over 200,000 miles on his odometer. Man, he's racked up a lot of coded racism on that rig. But that's easy to do in notorious cross-burning KKK swamps like suburban Massachusetts.

Whenever aspiring writers ask me for advice, I usually tell 'em this:

Don't just write there, do something. Learn how to shingle a roof, or tap-dance, or raise sled dogs. Because if you don't do anything, you wind up like Obama and Fineman - men for whom words are props and codes and metaphors but no longer expressive of anything real.

America is becoming a bilingual society, divided between those who think a pickup is a rugged vehicle useful for transporting heavy-duty items from A to B and those who think a pickup is coded racism.

Unfortunately, the latter group forms most of the Democrat-media one-party state currently running the country. Can you imagine Bill Clinton being so stupid as to put down pickup trucks while standing next to John Kerry? And what's even more extraordinary is that those lines were written for Obama by paid professionals.

But fine, have it your way. Tuesday's vote was really a plea by a desperate people for even more Obama. We're going to need even more Obama teleprompters, even more Obama speeches, even more sonorous banalities unrelated to action, even more "Let me be clears" prefacing even more tinny generalities, on even more reams of even more double-spaced paper. And we're gonna need a really heavy-duty rig to carry all that verbiage.

Maybe Scott Brown can sell 'em his truck!

Douglas Glenn Holloway

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Director's Action Group

Office: 703-767-1297

Mobile: 540-661-6116

BB: holloway4@comcast.net

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The military bowing to an inept CinC and public pressure has announced a move to a multi-sexual service.

Comments by Don of Indy:

RE: Don't ask, don't tell.

The military bowing to an inept CinC and public pressure has announced a move to a multi-sexual service.

Before I continue I'd like to say a few things. Personally I could care less about a person's sexual orientation. A person's sex life is, and should be, private. What I don't like is one of 'them' shoving it in my face and demanding that I respect them. I don't appreciate anyone who demands respect, be he a politician, lawyer, cook, or indian chief. You live your life and I'll live mine.

Also, in this piece when I use the word "gay" I mean it to be inclusive of homosexual, gay, lesbian, queer, et al. And, the masculine pronoun to be inclusive of both sexes, or those in between.

The other night there were two air heads on CNN being interview about allowing gays to serve openly in the military services. The most glaring dumb thing they said was that military service was no different from any other career field. Gays are open in all other career fields without any denigration to the quality of service. Wrong Moose Breath!!! That may be true, BUT, the military is not like any other career field.(PERIOD)

The gay working an assembly line in an auto factory, or in the football huddle, is not in any way like being a gay in the Army. Unlike the Army, he is not required to bed down in an open bay with 40 other soldiers. Nor, is he required to shower in an open bay with up 20 other naked soldiers. Nor, is he told who will be his bunk mate or to share a fox hole with. Nor, will he be told to get in tank, in close quarters, with three other soldiers. He will not be allowed to choose who he associates with. The reverse applies to the others in the bay, shower, tank, etc., etc.

That are major differences in the career fields. Regardless of personal views, it is that lack of freedom of choice that makes for a major failing in gays serving openly. I'm sure some of you know gays and accept them, but, think of what it would be like if you were ordered to get along with them, sleep with them, or lose your job.

I don't care how many assimilation programs are developed and touchy-felly seminars are conducted, there are going to be those who resist. That resistance may be based upon religious views, perceived threat to their sexuality, privacy issues, etc., etc. And, there will be problems that the OEM will eat up. "Gay beat to death in the showers." Unreported, because someone stepped over the line and touched or stared or asked. It will not be pretty and the "straights" will be too blame. It will be worse, in public and media opinions, than the current sexual harassment of females.

It has taken two generations for almost full acceptance of females in the military, I predict that it will take at least three, or more, generations to come to a point where gays are accepted openly in the military. In the mean time there is another issue that needs to be address.

Attitude. I've read that 20% of the population is gay. The other 80% is ignored, their opinions, desires, and beliefs. They are required to give into the minority. There are some who resist, the same is true of the military. I predict that without proper discussion and preparations, forced integration of open gays into the military will have an adverse affect on recruitment and retention.

Also, the argument that it works in the Brit, French, and German Armies don't make it so. This aint Europe! We have different morals and values.

Personally, I think the current system works fine, why fix it.

Now I know, and do not expect, you all to agree with me. Thank God for the 1st Amendment, the foundation to this great country. Regardless of your view, I encourage you to contact (I recommend www.congress.org) your senators and your representative and express your opinion, pro or con. Let's not leave this to some civilian bureaucrats in the 'odd building.' Our military has enough to face, an ill defined mission and led by a cartoon CinC. Morale is at an all-time low point, lets not compound the problem. And, it is a real problem, not simply a problem of attitude adjustment.

Don of Indy

Johnson County Patriots

http://www.meetup.com/Johnson-County-Patriots/

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." Mark Twain (1835-1910)

Search JWGMPI on local issues

Followers