King Abdullah, Jordan
This feels like a John Wayne movies, except the Duke is no longer available. So lacking John Wayne, I guess you just have to saddle up for your self. from, Donald Douglas, American Power:
Jordan’s King Abdullah to Personally Suit-Up Against Islamic State?
Reax, Mary Katherine Ham, Hot Air:
Or, maybe that’s just how I’d like to imagine it because it’s nice to imagine a leader of a country so righteously enraged by the brutal killing of his citizens and so skilled in the kicking of ass that he decides to engage in it personally.
Kings, many centuries past, used to lead their nations from the front of their columns. It has been a while.
Note, I am not a fan of unelected monarchs, like King Abdullah, or wanna be monarchs like Mrs. Clinton, but nice to see a leader, any leader, whos idea of how to lead in the midst of a crisis is not to play yet another round of golf.
Reynolds…
I hear the K-cups are so bad for the environment that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has removed the Keurig machine from his private jet.
You’re still supporting Bush?
Why?
Washington (CNN)During a “Family Reunion” conference hosted by the Hispanic Leadership Network in April 2013, Jeb Bush spoke freely on the promise immigrants hold for America and his views on reform.
He said, during a discussion with Univision, that it was “ridiculous” to think that DREAMers, children brought to the U.S. by their parents illegally, shouldn’t have an “accelerated path” to citizenship.
I’ll say it again….
TERF Wars. the battle between female radical feminists and male transsexuals has come to this, a matter of smell, from Taki Magazine:
As a connoisseur of leftist cannibalism, I enjoy watching the internecine squabbling of groups competing for the top spot on the hierarchy of oppression as if they were puppies stepping on one another’s necks straining for a tug on the warm teat of sympathy.
I gotta agree with the real girls on this one.
The Snark of the Day, from William Munny:
All right, I’m coming out. Any man I see out there, I’m gonna shoot him. Any sumbitch takes a shot at me, I’m not only gonna kill him, but I’m gonna kill his wife, all his friends, and burn his damn house down.
Source: IMDB
Back story: Bryon York, Washington Examiner.
You were saying something about the value of vaccinations, Barry?
Glenn notes today
FROM VOX, OF ALL PLACES, A FLASHBACK:Obama’s History Of Pandering To the Anti-Vaxxers.Here’s Obama in 2008: “We’ve seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” The reason why the Left is suddenly trying to tie this to GOP candidates is that it’s a big anti-science problem for their camp, and they’re trying to blow enough smoke to obscure that.
Related: Mother Jones, today, attacking Republicans for vaccine doubts.
Mother Jones in 2004: “Are the CDC, the FDA, and other health agencies covering up evidence that a mercury preservative in children’s vaccines caused a rise in autism?
That’s certainly a dramatic shift. But let’s examine why it occurred. Does anybody not suppose is that the shift of healthcare over to the purview of government via Obama are, didn’t have anything to do with this?
Consider this carefully… Their 2008 position is completely incompatible with their overt support of big government, since their 2008 position would inherently question the right of government to make those decisions about vaccinations, wouldn’t it?
Then again, perhaps we should note were the majority of these people are. Glenn does this admirably…
HE SAID “NO, REALLY, I’M NOT JOKING.” Where Is Vaccine Noncompliance? “He said take a map and put a pin wherever there’s a Whole Foods.”
Related: The Atlantic: Wealthy L.A. Schools’ Vaccination Rates Are as Low as South Sudan’s. Hollywood parents say not vaccinating makes “instinctive” sense. Now their kids have whooping cough. Stupid anti-science Bible-belters.
Getting the picture here? In other words, there’s a whole bunch of smoke being thrown up on this, and not a whole bunch of flames. But that problem gets multiplied once the power of law gets behind it.
George Pataki, the republican leader of a state without a single republican in state wide office, again, somehow, thinks he should run for President, from Fox News:
Former New York Gov. George Pataki told Fox News on Monday he’s “seriously” exploring a 2016 Republican bid for president.
The former governor said he plans to travel to New Hampshire on Tuesday to meet with political figures and citizens, and “lay out my ideas” for the country.
“I’m thinking about it very seriously,” Pataki told Fox News, when asked if he might run.
Hat tip: Outside the Beltwey.
Pataki can not get a single republican elected to statewide office in New York. How in the heck is going to get himself elected to national office?
On the foreign front, the regime does battles with enemies like Al-Qaeda, which it has declared defeated. Meanwhile back in Atlanta, the Center for Disease Control warms of the battled to defeat Measles, which which declared eradicated back the days of Forty Three, from Hill:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Tom Frieden on Sunday warned that the U.S. could see a “large outbreak” of measles.
“We are very concerned by the growing number of people who are susceptible to measles, and the possibility that we could have a large outbreak in this country as a result,” Frieden said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
There are at least 102 reported cases in 14 states, according to the CDC. Frieden said that the U.S. is “likely to see more cases
I suggest the CDC forget about issues beyond their scope of competence, and try to concentrate of their supposed mission, the control of communitable diseases.
The Snark of the Day, from Derek Hunter, Townhall:
The science is indeed settled: No one knows what’s going on with the climate, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something … or angling for a government grant.
Global warming, climate change or what ever you call it is a hoax.
By now, you will have heard about Romney dropping out of his presidential aspirations. David, has already written to this point yesterday.
Personally, I’m glad he’s leaving the race. I have written often of his shortcomings. But I think there is a lesson to be learned here by his departure, and his comments upon his announcement.
Now, I think Romney is a fairly honest critter, even if I dislike what he’s being honest about. I think he likes government a little too much. In fact, a lot too much. I suggested at the time, and many times since, that the reason he lost the last election was precisely that. He likes government, and thinks governments should be employed to provide solutions to social issues. He believes government has a right to be intrusive. But still, he seems an honest individual. And if nothing else. Mitt is an adept politician, and can read the tea leaves as well as anyone can. So let’s examine what he says by way of the Washington Post.
Mitt Romney’s exploration of a third presidential campaign ended Friday after three tumultuous weeks of deliberations that led him to conclude that, while he might emerge with the Republican nomination again in 2016, he might be so badly wounded in the process that he would have trouble defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election.
I suggest here that the Washington Post is rewriting the facts, so as to mesh with the lefts agenda.
While it’s certainly true that Romney would have had the best shot at the nomination, and would also have had a real damaging time of it in the primary, Jeb Bush would not have been the issue. Romney would have lost the general election simply because he is not conservative. This is something we’ve gone over
before.
Rush Limbaugh, nails this one perfectly….
Anyway, the money quote, this is what Romney said: “I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders, one who may not be as well known as I am today –”
Well, that eliminates anybody that’s currently in the running. It eliminates Jeb Bush. It limits Chris Christie.
And that’s exactly right. This is clearly a recognition from Romney that not only was he not conservative enough to win the general election, the other people currently at the top of the GOP nomination list, aren’t either.
Rush continues…
But it is a slap. It’s a swipe at the rest of the field. Essentially Romney is saying, “Look, I’m getting out of this, and we don’t have a prayer if the names you know are the only people that we have get in the race, ’cause the names you know don’t have a prayer of beating Hillary or whoever.” That’s what the message is. It better be somebody we don’t know yet. It better be somebody filled with energy, young, ready to make his mark, conservative and so forth. Which eliminates all the other people that are currently thought of to be in the race.
It’s not just a slap. As I say, I think Romney is a astute political observer. His thoughts on the matter of the rest of the field, should bear heavily on whatever the GOP decides to do.
The question that Romney’s departure has left us with, is do we really want the next GOP nominee to be decided by a bunch of uber rich Rockefeller Republicans, or will the voice of the conservative majority finally be heard?
Based on his comments, Romney recognizes that that’s really the issue.
This is not a William Tecumseh Sherman like statement. However, from Mitt Romney, via Hugh Hewitt:
I’ve decided it is best to give other leaders in the Party the opportunity to become our next nominee.
Mitt does leave the door ajar, if no republican candidate can step up. Sorry for the Dope from Hope, Mike Huckabee, the moderate in the field is named Jeb Bush. Let us see what the conservative wing can muster behind. Right now, I like Scott Walker. And you?
It doesn’t take a great deal of effort to observe that the White House and its occupants are having a great deal of problems with the upcoming speech to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, a good number of commenters are observing that the White House is in a state of panic over it.
One such place, oddly enough, is the Washington Post of all places. Not exactly a bastion of right-wing thinking, that, and yet here it is.
After days of whining that Netanyahu’s appearance was not cleared with the White House, U.S. officials have taken to the press to anonymously screech and moan, accusing the Israeli ambassador — gasp! — of furthering the prime minister’s interests at the expense of his relations with the administration. (This is rich, considering the president’s hot-mike comment about Netanyahu and a senior official’s recent use of a barnyard epithet to criticize Netanyahu). In a separate New York Times article (one was not enough to assist the White House propaganda machine!), the Netanyahu speech is portrayed as helping the White House round up opposition to the Menendez-Kirk sanctions. The kicker is a quote from the president of the notoriously anti-Israel J Street – which the Times originally falsely labeled as “a Democratic-aligned pro-Israel group” and later changed to “Israeli advocacy group” after a spate of mocking tweets on Wednesday night — piling on the anti-Netanyahu criticism. (This would be akin to identifying Vladimir Putin as a pro-peace voice on Ukraine or the Saudi king as a defender of human rights.) The latter is ludicrous. The Menendez-Kirk bill was introduced this week and is set to be marked up in the Senate Banking Committee soon. For the first time, 10 Democrats have promised to vote for the conditional sanctions at a specified time (after March 24).
The complaint from the White House is so disproportionate to the issue and so defensive (is the president so petrified that Congress might hear a compelling speech from the United States’ best ally in the Middle East?) that one wonders what it is up to.
Well, no, not really. All one really needs to do is look at the history of the thing. Consider the relationship between Netanyahu and democrat President Bill Clinton, for example. This is something that I wrote about in the very first post on this blog.
From Oslo to Camp David, Clinton has pushed Israel to the bargaining table, and pressured her to give up vital strategic and cultural assets she has no business giving away, if survival is at all on her agenda. Ehud Barak, by his giving into Bill Clinton (who, along with his staff including Jim Carville, did much to put Barak into office), has done little more than demonstrate just how empty the Palestinians’ peace talk really is, and how desperate Clinton was to be seen as a good President, his crimes against his oaths not withstanding. Consider….
At Clinton’s insistence, Barak offered Arafat the keys to the kingdom; just about all of the West Bank and Gaza, plus East Jerusalem and even Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. How do the peace loving Palestinians respond? Yasser Arafat turned it all down, and gave us another few nights of headlines, filled with kids in the street throwing stones, and being shot, occasionally. He also sent his armed forces, (You recall, they’re supposed to be policemen?) to fire at the Israelis, apparently hoping for an excuse to tell the rest of the world how Israel is a war-mongering nation.
Of course that should have been a signal to about anyone with a brain that he didn’t give a damn about peace. All he and his followers are interested in is the destruction of Israel. It should have also been a signal that Clinton’s attempt at a legacy backfired, big time, and more, that it didn’t have a chance to start with…. something that Clinton should have known, did he have any understanding of the
situation at all. You will recall, perhaps that back in 1992 , Clinton more or less bragged he had no understanding of matters of foreign policy. This was never quite so clear as during this monstrosity Mr. Clinton unleashed on the world.For Israel’s part, all of this has been laid at the feet of Ehud Barak, perhaps unfairly. No, I don’t think he was the man for the job, and clearly was only in the PM’s position because Clinton’s people worked so hard to get him there, apparently hoping to set up Clinton’s brokering a of peace deal. Easy to do when you have the PM of Israel owing you his election. But Barak apparently was under pressures he had no control of, having nothing to do with politics at home, or the Palestinians… both of which were quite out of his control to begin with, in any event.. He was concerned with Israel continuing to get support from the US. In this concern, he saw Israel as being on the controlled end of the puppet’s string… and knowing that if he did not capitulate to Clinton’s demands, that vital US support would wither as quickly as Benjamin Netenyau’s prime ministership did, when it became clear he wasn’t going to buckle to Clinton’s concession demands.
And Barak wasn’t alone, nor was the left in Israel, in this perception of US control versus Israel’s survival. Yitzhak Rabin, hardly a liberal even by American standards and certainly not under Bill Clinton’s extortion based control to the extent that Barak was, saw the same problems. His longtime friends, according reports I’ve seen,
tell us he was deeply troubled over the prospect of losing US support… and therefore bought into the ‘land for peace’ deals being brokered by the liberals in the US. This was something I predicted he wouldn’t have done.Israeli voters, seeing this happening, and clearly annoyed with the US control over Israel’s dealings with the Palestinians, trounced Barak in the polls. Unless one considers this anger, the election of Ariel Sharon, his replacement, is hard to fathom, since he has never been overly popular, as best I can tell. But perhaps the people of Israel are finally figuring out what the real story is.. that in truth, there is no dealing with the Palestinians, and Arifat.
One hopes that they’ve not been too late in coming to this conclusion. If they are, world war seems fairly certain to me… possibly nuclear in nature.”
Personally, I consider it no small point, that the post to which I refer and which I have quoted here, was written two days after the 9 11 attacks.
Sorry for the extended quote of my older article, but it’s critical that you understand that history is repeating itself here.
I suggest the pattern of Democrats having anti Israel and Pro Muslim sentiments, and working toward those goals, is nearly axiomatic. But that’s just for openers.
Even more pronounced is the Pro Muslim sentiments of Barack Hussein Obama, whose White House is once again meddling in the political affairs internal to Israel. As the Washington Post article notes….
Other Israel watchers speculate that this is really a ham-handed way of interfering with Israel’s elections by giving fuel to Netanyahu’s opponents, who argue that he cannot get along with the United States. This would be par for the course for an administration that has strained to topple the Israeli government. Its offense? It simply refuses to knuckle under to administration bullying or go quietly as the United States appeases Iran, an existential threat to the Jewish state.
Ironically, the scuffle comes just after Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed two Israeli soldiers, reminding us that Iran is on the march throughout the region and that the Iranian government with which Obama hopes to achieve a grand reconciliation is committed to Israel’s destruction.
A destruction which this administration is apparently as eager to help along, as was that of the Clintons.
Speaking of the Clintons, Hillary Clinton has endorsed very loudly the approach Barack Hussein Obama has taken with the situation, and I say unsurprising, since it’s so similar to the policies she and her husband pursued while they infested the White House.
I suspect that there is some crucial bit of intelligence as regards to the activities of Iran… activities of a nuclear weaponry nature, which Netanyahu is going to bring to the congressional speech. I suggest that the White House knows this, and is desperate to stop it, knowing the Congress will act on that information.
As will both the Israeli and American voters.
Really, it’s the only way to explain the hysterical responses we see from the White House.
I don’t even think I have to say anything here. I will however add the idea that these idiots are voting on your future. How your money gets used. What kind of car you drive. What kind of light bulbs you can have. And so on. Did you get the picture, yet?
Addendum: DavidL
In France, a number of h9mosexuals have found the clues, to wit the Muslim is not the friend of the homosexual. The right wing party National Front is gaining support from the homosexual population, from Spectator:
French gay votersare falling for the Front National’s leader, Marine Le Pen. A survey by the polling firm Ifop indicates a dramatic increase in support for the FN among homosexual and bisexual voters since the French presidential elections of April 2012. It showed, for instance, that in Paris 26 per cent of homosexuals supported Le Pen, compared with 16 per cent of hetero-sexuals.
It only makes sense, hat tip and reax, Neo-Neocon:
Le Pen winning more gay support in France
It makes perfect sense, actually, because the real hate crimes against gay people in France are being committed by Muslims:
If a population, any population, is being murdered by another population, which refuses to assimilate, it make sense to oppose the open border immigration on an intolerant population, to wit Muslims.
Daily Caller this morning is reporting…..
President Barack Obama is abandoning his proposal to eliminate Section 529 — the popular tax break used by millions of Americans to save for college — following a big backlash, not only from Republicans and parents, but also from his own Democratic allies.
Ace looks at this and muses:
Actually I think it was a stunt from the start. The point of it is to propose an outright attack on the Middle Class so that our energies are expended defending against that attack and not expended on offense repealing ObamaCare.
We then get a the feeling we’ve “won one” and have less of an appetite to fight.
In fact we won nothing. This was always a Negotiating Point, proposed only to be bargained away.
I think Ace is on the right track here, but he doesn’t go nearly far enough.
Let’s be honest here. Obama and his crew are a target rich environment unlike anything we’ve seen since the beginning of the country. It’s not just Obamacare, although that’s part of it. The Benghazi thing coming up very shortly as David mentioned earlier, is certainly another high priority item with this White House. They want to keep it under wraps. what better way than to create confusion and diversion?
I’ve said this before, but it applies here rather well. This is not an incompetent administration. They know precisely what they’re doing. They have Goose-stepped in exactly the wrong direction at every opportunity. You simply don’t get that kind of consistency without two things going for you, talent, and intent. What we are witness to is resistance management. Now, whether or not it works to my mind is an open question.
Addendum, Eric
Of course, it should be noted that that kind of controversy control, could not possibly have been had to the degree of as absent s press willing to eat out of the hand of Obama and company. Normally, I would consider that an entirely different subject, but in this case, I reckon one cannot be had without the other.
