Andrew Malcolm, IBD: President Obama knows he’s in trouble with the American people. Yes, his job approval has slipped further since Christmas, down to 40%, and is worse than G.W. Bush’s at the same point. But you can tell Obama knows it anyway because he’s fallen back on his path of preferred political action. He’s giving speeches. Many speeches. Campaign speeches. Roll-up-the-sleeves speeches. Point-his-finger speeches. Call-on-others-to-do-something speeches. It’s what Obama
January 2014
“Stevens Cabled Washington: CIA Says ‘AQ [Al Qaeda] Training Camps Within Benghazi’”
Really? Well, he’s dead now — and who knows what was done to his body. So to borrow from the next President of the Amerikka, “what difference does it make?” An internet trailer, Al Qaeda building forces in an election year wherein the incumbent was running on the false narrative that Al Qaeda had all but been eradicated, even as his diplomatic corps worked to bolster and aid the Muslim
“I am appalled, I am outraged, I’m ashamed of the Republican Party” [Darleen Click]
When Hugh Hewitt blasts Paul Ryan… Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt slammed Rep. Paul Ryan Tuesday in a heated exchange over the federal spending bill’s pension cuts for active duty military servicemen. “This will destroy retention, it will destroy morale and it is deeply unfair to the American military,” Hewitt told Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget committee. “…On every level it is an outrage to what we
SHOCKER: White House, Administration, Defense Secretary, et al knew immediately Benghazi was a terror attack
James Rosen, fresh from being surveilled by the most transparent Administration ever, breaks the news last evening, citing newly declassified documents, among which was the transcript of Gen Ham, then head of AFRICOM, who was all but disappeared after the incident: Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials — headed for a previously scheduled Oval
US government finds no evidence to accuse itself of a crime
Instead, the FBI — through a leak –has let it be known that confusion about rules and bureaucratic incompetence, and not intentional or particularly targeted malfeasance within the IRS, were to blame for the completely one-sided targeting of TEA Party groups in the run-up to the 2012 elections. Or, to put it another way, the government has decided, after what it will call careful examination, not to charge itself for
“Supreme Court To Weigh Constitutionality of Obama Power Grab”
Which, let me just get out in front of this: 5-4 in favor of the boy King, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority that “once you go half black, you can never go half back,” or “what the plaintiffs assert are ‘appointments,’ I see as ‘physical taxes’ taking the shape of fat Marxist shitheels out to cripple industry, and it is the President’s discretion to use such
Process as punishment …
I’d heard of this a while back, but until Darleen forwarded me this reminder, I don’t think I ever covered it here — one of the pitfalls of having to follow a political system whose corruption is so endemic it daily threatens to reach critical mass and just implode, leaving nothing behind but a giant pile of flag lapel pins, wingtips, and the occasional cardinal colored pant suit and set
Carter Country, continued
“People Not In Labor Force Soar To Record 91.8 Million; Participation Rate Plunges To 1978 Levels”. Which is precisely why I never got rid of my Pierre Cardin Bar Mitzvah suit and platform shoes. Because who knows, right? Funny thing is, I remember back in 2007 — during the time of the dapper pant crease, the “intellectualism” of an Ivy League presidency, and all the bullshit about Obama’s supposed post-partisan,
Sheldon Richman of Reason jumps the shark [Darleen Click]
“Support for freedom and independence, then, requires opposition to intellectual property.” I won’t try to recap the whole case here, but I do want to answer a question that will occur to many advocates of liberty: How can someone who supports property rights in physical objects deny property rights in intellectual products, such as the useful application of scientific principles or patterns of words, musical tones, or colors? It says
