Topmost (in use)

Tag Archives | Obama failure

Harper Explains Case for Syrian Attack While Obama Stutters

I personally lean toward simply allowing both sides in Syria to lose to each other in this civil war of Islamist extremists. But if I’m pressed to play nice-nice, I’d be in favor of a serious military strike against the regime, with vigor, as I like to say. Hit their air bases and other strategic military structures. And I’d like to have done it long syrian_rebelsago.

No, not the effete, symbolic gesture that is currently on the table, and will be for another week at least, thanks to the dithering, confused, unfocused Barack Hussein Obama. Had he acted two years ago when there was a clear option for democracy, he might not be the embarrassment of half his own party, the butt of late-night comedians’ jokes, and he wouldn’t need the pathetic pandering and rescue-attempts of the amazingly resilient liberal media sycophants.

Obama can’t sell his “limited, few-day-long, no boots on the ground, message” -type attack (it’s “not a war in the ‘classic’ sense”  —  John Kerry) to me. He can’t even sell it the American people he tries to lord over. Nor even the members of Congress in his own party. If it does pass the vote, it will only be because Obama’s indecision and inaction has left no better alternative.

Leading from behind is not a good way to lead the free world. How many times did we warn you liberals about this?

Jonah Goldberg is as frustrated as many Americans and in fact people the world over. He writes:

…So I am trying very hard to hold onto this perspective as I watch the president of the United States behave in a way you don’t have to be a pan-Arab autocrat to think is incredibly stupid.

Where to begin? Perhaps with Obama’s initial refusal to support the moderate rebels seeking to overthrow Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a puppet of Iran and bagman for Hezbollah. Or we might start with Obama’s refusal to support the Green Movement in Iran, which sought to overthrow the Iranian regime, which would have been a triumph for both our principles and our national interests. …

More than any other politician in the US or Canada, it is none other than Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative, but only marginally) who has made the best case I’ve heard for attacking Syria, as per Obama’s plan.

Harper  —  not known as anything like the supposedly brilliant orator that Obama is cast as by the liberal press   —  did this this morning, in three minutes, totally off-the-cuff, while President Obama was still stuttering and muttering and “um”-ing and “aaaaand”-ing and “uh”-ing his way through some sort of seemingly tired, last-ditch attempt at a salient defense of his position.

See the video here:

And no, Barack (as he identifies himself to me in his smarmy, over-friendly, yet virulently anti-Republican and extremely-partisan, political snow sales-job emails), you cannot escape that “red line” idiocy of your own making by blaming either “the world,” as you’ve tried to do, or even George W. Bush, as I’m sure you’d love to do. (Although I admit, as you said, your credibility is not on the lines, as the fawning media will ensure.)

Both sides in Syria are dominated by radical Islamists, with one side being led by the same Baath party as Saddam Hussein. In fact I have no doubt that Syria’s WMDs came from Saddam Hussein and what used to be his authoritarian terrorist state, before George W. Bush rightfully changed history for the better. A welcoming and ever so friendly and like-minded Syria is where Hussein ditched his WMD stockpiles during the several-month-long run-up to what the liberals and their media division tried to sell us as George Bush’s “rush to war.” No wonder stockpiles of WMD weren’t found in Iraq (although we know he had them and used them to even more deadly effect than Assad has). I can’t believe I’m still having to make this argument, as, in 2013, even after we’ve learned lessons, Syria hides their WMDs and prepares, almost as per Obama’s instructions.

Again with Goldberg:

Meanwhile, according to numerous accounts, Assad is moving military assets into civilian areas and civilians into military areas, even as the Obama administration insists it makes no difference militarily to wait for Congress to debate. That’s not just stupid; it’s an outright lie that will be fact-checked with blood.

The “rebel” side in Syria is at best dominated by uncivilized, extremist mobs. The kind that hoot and holler and shoot machine guns and semi-automatic rifles in the air to express their… I don’t know what.

That rebel side may be currently controlled by, or could soon be controlled by al-Qaeda. I don’t feel the need to aid al-Qaeda after all the trouble we’ve all been through. Nor am I anxious to see any other Islamist jihadist extremists rise to power when Assad is ultimately offed in Syria, as happened in Egypt with their Muslim Brotherhood.

I obviously can’t count on Stephen Harper to sell my side of the argument. But do what I did: watch a few of the videos I’ve watched. Yes, I’ve watched the post-gas-attack videos which Obama supporters continually point me to and replay on their news programs. I also watched the Saddam Hussein gas attack videos, which apparently left the liberals unmoved. But you should watch the videos of the rebels or what the quixotic liberals still call “Arab Spring” fighters. Watch as they shoot Syrian soldiers in the the head as the Assad soldiers sit on their knees awaiting execution. In another video, watch as a rebel fighter, using his knife, literally carved the still warm heart right out of an Assad soldier, then put it in his mouth to eat it.  Then you might see my point about both sides losing being a win-win.


Continue Reading

Survey of police: Obama/left-wing gun control fetish wrong on nearly every point.

I’m a pro-gun rights advocate because I’m sane, and because I’m a conservative and believe in my individual rights and freedoms such as the fundamental right to defend myself.

President Obama’s anti-gun, pro-gun-control, multimillion dollar bully-pulpit campaign (and oh by the way, convenient political fund-raising stunt), currently taking place across the country aboard Air Force One at a taxpayer cost of untold millions, is ridiculous and as usual, misses the real targets, such as the mental health issues, gangs, the breakdown of the family, and more, behind the recent outbreaks.

Like so much of the liberal-left or progressive politics, Obama’s latest well-timed fetish is loaded with a gun-Beretta 92FS S maxiclip full of specious feel-good appeals to the emotions (once again using kids — including dead kids — as his stage props), and in symbolism, rather than reason and empirical evidence. And of course his proposals promise more big government, nanny-state solutions. More government and government regulations and controls and social-engineering and increased spending are the answer to every problem (even spending problems), according to progressives.

The measures the Obama Left propose would do practically nothing to reduce gun violence, and might in fact increase gun violence. They would clearly reduce citizens’ rights and freedoms. And contrary to the blather about being “smart” and”pro-science”, as Obama always falsely claims to be, his proposed measures are not at all smart and are completely unscientific. In reality, Obama’s big-government answers are really based in nothing but pure left-wing, partisan politics, with an eye to increasing the size and scope of government, and winning left-wing power in upcoming congressional elections in 2014.

If Barack Obama were an ex-cop or some sort of expert in crime prevention, or was at least a law and order advocate with any history or expertise in that area, it might give his ideas more fire power. But his record of success is that of being a left-wing politician, formerly representing Chicago — the city with more murders (500+ last year alone) than the troops in war-torn Afghanistan — and Chicago is the city with some of the toughest gun control measures in America. So his gun control ideas are based on what expertise or success? None, inasmuch as Barack Obama has expertise and success in just about nothing except rallying the left to his sophistic causes.

But the authoritative police community website wanted to explore the thinking of their own police community, and conducted an extensive survey among its members to that end. I think I’ll take their opinion more seriously than Barack Obama’s. Here are some of the key points (not complete — see the complete survey here) I found most interesting in their survey:

PoliceOne’s Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers’ perspectives

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation’s attention in recent weeks: gun control.

More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it’s important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent). See enlarged image

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

Bottom Line Conclusions
Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

Interestingly, even as I write this, a group of bi-partisan senators have struck-up a deal which includes some extra background checks for commercial gun purchases (which I should note would not have prevented many of any of the recent gun tragedies), increased punishment of gun trafficking, and would bolster federal funding for school security plans — something which you’ll remember the NRA advocated but which was shot down by the left when they immediately fired their automatic weapons (their word holes) at it, using their usual knee-jerk shoot first, ask questions later, mentality.

Here is a statement from the NRA today:

Fairfax, Va. – Expanding background checks at gun shows will not prevent the next shooting, will not solve violent crime and will not keep our kids safe in schools. While the overwhelming rejection of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg’s “universal” background check agenda is a positive development, we have a broken mental health system that is not going to be fixed with more background checks at gun shows. The sad truth is that no background check would have prevented the tragedies in Newtown, Aurora or Tucson. We need a serious and meaningful solution that addresses crime in cities like Chicago, addresses mental health deficiencies, while at the same time protecting the rights of those of us who are not a danger to anyone. President Obama should be as committed to dealing with the gang problem that is tormenting honest people in his hometown as he is to blaming law-abiding gun owners for the acts of psychopathic murderers.

• Also see my recent article “5…4…3…2…1…BANG, you’re dead!”
• and (UPDATE!) Ann Coulter’s latest: “Liberals Go Crazy For The Mentally Ill”


Continue Reading

Carbon Tax is Pointless and Inflationary

Climate alarmists hope that Hurricane Sandy and President Obama’s re-election will coerce panicky congressional Republicans into a “carbon tax” deal in 2013. But simple math shows the tax would have no effect other than an inflationary one.

A carbon tax would operate as a new sales tax on goods and services that are produced through or otherwise involve the burning of fossil fuels. You might pay the tax in your electric bill, at the gas pump or in the form of higher prices for other good and services.

The purpose of a carbon tax would be to penalize fossil fuel use in hopes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which have been hypothesized to cause global cooling (1970s), global warming (1980s-1990s), climate change (2000s) and extreme weather (2010s).

While higher prices for goods and services aren’t inherently evil, their merits must be judged by what consumers and society get in return. So let’s consider a carbon tax from a climatic perspective.

To give a carbon tax the maximum advantage in our analysis, we’ll assume that it would be totally successful in reducing U.S. Big government: big failurecarbon emissions — i.e., the U.S. emits no carbon dioxide whatsoever from fossil fuels. And let’s also imagine that this public policy wonder has this magical effect as of Jan. 1, 2013.

So what would be the climatic effect of immediately shutting down the fossil fuel-based U.S. economy?

Let’s assume that U.S. fossil fuel use results in 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere annually and that, of this amount, about 40% (2.4 billion tons) stays and accumulates in the atmosphere annually.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million and one part per million of carbon dioxide weighs approximately 7.81 billion metric tons. Simple division, then, shows that the U.S. might be adding at most approximately 0.31 parts per million to the atmosphere every year.

If the carbon tax could magically stop U.S. emissions entirely as of 2013, then by the year 2100, we would have avoided adding about 27 parts per million (0.31 x 87) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That may sound like a lot, but consider that the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 391 parts per million. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the year 2100 could range from 450 parts per million (absolute global clampdown on greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century) to 950+ parts per million (no clampdown).

Either way, it’s plain to see that a savings of 27 parts per million over 87 years is trivial, particularly in comparison to its cost (shutting down the entire economy) and would make no meaningful climatic difference even if atmospheric carbon dioxide was the driver of global climate that the alarmists claim it is.

For further perspective, consider that 27 parts per million ago (i.e., 364 parts per million) was, temporally speaking, 1997 — since which time there has been no significant global warming, even according to the alarmists.

But remember we here have been fantasizing wildly about the effect of a carbon tax. No carbon tax enacted into law — even by an Obama-fearing 113th Congress — would come any where close to significantly reducing, much less stopping fossil fuel use in the U.S. anytime soon.

In reality, goods and services would simply be made to cost more. The atmosphere and climate would not be affected in any significant way. Consumer dollars would have less purchasing power — a phenomenon called inflation.

Sadly, some prominent conservative economists support a carbon tax.

Reagan economist Arthur Laffer would support a tax in exchange for a reduction in payroll or income taxes. Bush 43 economist Greg Mankiw supports a global tax. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, senior adviser to John McCain in 2008, wants a tax to provide the energy industry with regulatory “certainty.”

As smart as these guys may be, none of them has apparently done the simple math that shows a carbon tax is a policy futility that buys less than nothing.

Hurricane Sandy shows what life is like without fossil fuels; it’s not a reason to do away with them. President Obama doesn’t care about the realities of climate; for him and his kind, global warming is an excuse to seize greater control of the economy. As to congressional Republicans, don’t panic; do the (simple) math.

Continue Reading

Newsweek hits bottom of ditch, keeps digging.

I detect a child-like giddiness in the editorial room at the left-wing’s so-called news magazine Newsweek, and from their editor’s big office. Wait. They do still have grown-up editors over there, right? I’m not real sure.

Newsweek cover - May 2012 - Obama supports gay marriageAnyway I’m thinking the editorial discussion about this week’s cover, or at least the out loud thinking, went something like this: Hey groovers, Obama came out in favor of gay marriage. So, yay. We live for these moments. Not because we give a crap about gay marriage other than the fact the we’re ideologically “for it” on account of the fact that it seems to still be among the latest liberal-leftist things to glom onto, and it seems like the young cool cats still dig it, and because it’s another fantastic distraction away from Obama’s almost complete failures as president, but because this choice we’re making for our latest cover will just drive those conservatives a**holes and the “Christian right” simply mad. They will openly exhibit more of their hilarious moral outrage, and we liberals and progressives on the left will all have a great big laugh at their expense. (Hopefully nobody will notice how un-“inclusive” we all are, am I right?!) And all the other club members in the liberal media will hail us as heroes  —  not because we’re prepared to sacrifice the journalistic standards of Newsweek and journalism generally even more than we already have, but because ultimately, our brave choice will help the progressive cause, and in the process, Obama will come out looking like a saint to us liberals and progressives (we’ll craft is such that is does, with that Godly halo thing that all the idiots fall for!), and it may help him win back the rest of our voting block. And also, all the other idiots in the media will plaster our cover all over the place and raise our May newsstand sales for us!

And then after all that “thinking,” and “journalistic integrity,” they take a two-hour organic lunch break followed by a yoga break.

And each time they do one of these opinionated, overtly side-taking, troll-like covers (remember “WE ARE ALL SOCIALISTS NOW”?), I know that Newsweek has failed again. They make the wrong editorial and marketing choice, it backfires (or will backfire) on them at least over the long term, it makes all the liberal media look all the more stupid, partisan, divisive, in some cases petty, and as some of us would see it, literally drunk or high on crack while at work. Simply not taking their journalistic jobs seriously. Behaving like idiot children of idiotic, careless, rich liberal parents.

That’s mostly what I get out of their covers.  Not the desired effect, huh Newsweek? But then we are all suckas now, aren’t we?

And the actual effect is that the magazine, among others like it which are already in the ditch, sinks deeper into it as a result of their constant digging.

Newsweek asked 'why are Obama's critics so dumb?' On its cover. I ask: Who's dumb now?In the latest Newsweek cover story, Andrew Sullivan, whose previous Newsweek cover story asked: “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?” inserts himself into the news story and writes about his own visceral emotions as much as the actual news story about Obama’s decision. He was apparently so darn struck by the Obama’s big announcement, that he had to write about how he cried and cried. Because that’s hard news that we all need.

“…when I watched the interview [on ABC during which Obama made his announcement], the tears came flooding down. The moment reminded me of my own wedding day. I had figured it out in my head, but not my heart. And I was utterly unprepared for how psychologically transformative the moment would be. To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity—and the humanity of all gay Americans—was, unexpectedly, a watershed…”

— Andrew Sullivan in Newsweek

Oh dear. That is some pretty strong emotions for such a news story. Tears “flooding down” … “utterly unprepared” … “psychologically transformative” … “affirm my humanity” … “a watershed….”.  All this while watching Obama on TV stutter through another fawning liberal media interview, saying he’s now suddenly “for” gay marriage? (And only to be decided at the state level, not Obama’s level, so like how awesomely courageous of the president, huh?!).

But then he let the tears roll again. This time for the cameras. This time on the far-left’s very own MSNBC’s Chris “I fee a chill up my leg when Obama speaks” Matthews’ show, which is aptly described as an Obama love-in and a conservative hate-on, so imagine my shock when they booked him as a guest.

Andrew Sullivan and his husband

Screen-grab of Andrew Sullivan and his husband, from MSNBC's Hard Ball with Chris Matthews.

And this from a guy who gives out his hyper-sarcastic annual “awards” for such things as the “Poseur Alert,” which is supposedly awarded for writings that stand out for their pretension, vanity and what Sullivan thinks is really bad writing designed to look like profundity. Not that he sees the hypocrisy, but awards for writing much like his own writing often is. See above. Oh “the humanity.”

But let’s wipe off our tears, shall we? Obama’s miraculously-timed, and oh-so “evolved” switch-up in…wait… his very core principles of life? Yup!  —  is actually little more than a wily, calculated political move, perhaps pushed into the public eye a little sooner than his own campaign team would have liked, by a bumbling, near-idiot of a Vice President, Joe Biden. But even Sullivan admits this “evolve” will help the campaign cash bundlers get more Obama-cash. So that’s not just a coinkidink. Still, he cried.

(Notice that whenever a liberal totally changes position on something to a more liberal position it’s called “evolved,” but when a conservative changes position it’s called a “flip-flop”? Just wondering. Because I think America does notice.  But nice try, liberal media!)

Obama’s possible re-election might prove to be a little bit more than merely personally “psychologically transformative” for America and even the world. It might advance Obama’s stated mission to “fundamentally transform America.” And that’s watershed stuff.


Cross-posted at


Continue Reading

Canada punches way above its weight in jobs-added compared to U.S.

This is not necessarily a sound economic comparison, but it’s interesting anyway.

Canada, which already has an unemployment number below that of the U.S., added 58,000 jobs in April.  You’d expect the U.S., which has ten times the population and an economy more than ten times the size of Canada’s, and which, under Obama and the Democrats, has “invested” (scare quotes accompanied by a huge eye-roll) tons more taxpayer cash in corporate and crony labor union bailouts and so-called “stimulus” (snarf), to have created at least ten times that number  –  or 580,000 jobs. But that’s not what happened.

In the U.S.:

115,000 jobs added in April, less than expected…

Last Updated: 10:11 AM, May 4, 2012

WASHINGTON — US job growth slowed again in April, a fresh sign that the economy could be settling into a sluggish spring.

… A broader measure of unemployment — which includes job seekers as well as those stuck in part-time jobs — was unchanged at 14.5 percent.

And here’s a snippet from today’s news from Canada:

Canada added 58,000 jobs in April, StatsCan reports Staff
Date: Fri. May. 11 2012 10:27 AM ET

Canada saw an increase of 58,000 jobs in April, the second straight month of notable gains in the workforce, according to Statistics Canada.

Following are some key points from the report:

  • In April, construction employment rose by 25,000 jobs and were up 3.5 per cent from a year earlier;
  • Manufacturing jobs were up by 24,000 in April, continuing an upward trend that began in December;
  • Educational service jobs were up 17,000;
  • Natural resources employment continued an upward trend that began last fall, and showed a robust increase of 12.5 per cent employment from a year earlier;
  • Agricultural employment increased by 10,000 jobs in April;
  • Employment in public administration dropped by 32,000 jobs.

Canada is led by a tepid Conservative government. They participated in the giant U.S. auto bailout of Chrysler and GM (Canada is a huge manufacturing center for the big-3 U.S. auto makers), even though President Obama claimed he saved the auto industry.


Cross-posted to

Continue Reading

It's a question.