This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • College educated Obama supporters

    Yesterday, a commenter tried to make the point that college educated people tend to support Barack Obama more than they supported either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I’m not going to argue against that because the commenter, of course, didn’t provide a source for his statistics, nor am I all that interested in proving or disproving that. I will, however, offer a reason that such a thing happens; the more time people spend sitting in a classroom, the less real life experiences they have.

    Life isn’t covered in books and professors, cloistered behind their ivy-covered walls, have no experience in life. They can quote Kafka and Dostoevsky but they can’t do their taxes or change a battery in their car.

    College students support Obama in droves – because to their half-empty minds, he has loads of experience. But what do college students know? They’ve been supported their whole lives and worry about how they’ll support themselves when school ends. He must be smart because he was a teacher –  teachers have been telling students for years how smart they are. But ask someone with a real job how smart they think teachers are.

    Yeah, I went to college – after I lived half of my life. That’s when I discovered how stupid teachers really are – when they told me about historical events that I had lived and knew their version was wrong and they wouldn’t accept my eye-witness account because it conflicted with what they’d learned from other stupid teachers.

    The truth is; high school was tougher than college. Somehow in the twenty years between the time I went to high school and the time I went to college, high school and college lowered their expectations of students and they started graduating morons (how else do you explain remedial reading classes in college?). I breezed through college. I dropped out of a Master’s Program because it was a waste of my time – they weren’t teaching me anything I couldn’t learn on my own.

    Diplomas are the goal now instead of the education a diploma is supposed to represent.

    Some of the smartest people I knew growing up had never graduated eighth grade. They couldn’t quote Kafka or Dostoevsky  but they could change a car battery. I look around my workplace, which is full of college graduates, and they’re probably the dumbest people I’ve ever known.

    So, I hope that explains to that commenter who tried to influence me to vote for Obama by making me feel stupid why I thought his comment was the dumbest thing I ever heard.

  • Hegseth: Obama must go to Iraq

    Pete Hegseth, Chairman of Vets for Freedom writes in the Wall Street Journal this morning that Barack Obama’s refusal to go to Iraq only undermines Obama’s credibility on the war against terror and more specifically the war in Iraq;

    Mr. Obama continues to insist that “Iraq’s political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war” – despite the passage of numerous pieces of benchmark legislation by the Iraqi Parliament and unequivocal evidence of grassroots reconciliation across the country.

    Mr. Obama also continues to claim that America has “simply thrown U.S. troops at the problem, and it has not worked” – despite the dramatic reduction in violence in precisely those areas of Iraq where American forces have surged, and since handed over to Iraqi Security Forces.

    And of course, Mr. Obama persists in his pledge to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq, on a fixed timeline, beginning the moment he enters office – regardless of the recommendations of our commanders on the ground, regardless of conditions on the ground, and regardless, in short, of reality.

    America is longing for an informed and principled debate about the future of Iraq. However, such a debate seems unlikely if the Democratic nominee for president won’t take the time to truly understand the dynamics on the ground, let alone meet with commanders.

    The time for talking points is over. Too much is at stake. When will Mr. Obama finally return to Iraq and see the situation for himself?

    Well, I’ll explain it to you, Pete; If Obama were to go to Iraq, he’d be without teleprompters and handlers – he’d be just another lanky, jug-eared bonehead without the adoring crowds waving signs and cheering. He’d look like the uncoordinated doofus he is. He’d be Barack Obama Unplugged.

    [youtube PRvhI8w_-jU nolink]

    If he went to Iraq, he’d either have to lie about what he would see with his own eyes, or he’d have to admit that he’s been wrong the last several months – and he’d have to reformulate his policy on Iraq to something the Code Pink and the MoveOn.org special interest groups couldn’t tolerate. Obama would have to admit that John McCain and George W. Bush were right all along – that wouldn’t sit well with anyone being funded by George Soros.

    [youtube dm8JTrv-BKs nolink]

    I mean, why should Obama mar his perfect record of plausible deniability? As long as he never goes to Iraq, he can say he was given bad information. Just like his stupid remarks that he never heard Jeremiah Wright’s hate speech in church, just like yesterday when he said that the Tony Rezko who was sentenced to prison isn’t the Tony Rezko Obama knew all of these years. Obama doesn’t want to know the truth, he just wants to parrot vacant platitudes that attract the empty-minded zombies.

  • We’re scary

    Here come the Obamistas;

    untitled111.jpg

     I’m salivating already.

  • The best reason to vote against Obama

    I saw this over at Little Green Footballs. It seems the whole world is excited that the Democrats nominated Barack Obama as their candidate (AP link);

    Excitement about Barack Obama emerged as a global phenomenon Wednesday as commentators and citizens around the world welcomed the news that he had sealed the Democratic presidential nomination.

    The excitement was less about Obama’s foreign policies — which remain vague on many fronts — than a sense that the candidacy of a black American with relatives in Africa and childhood friends in Asia marks a historic moment.

    Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, said Obama’s win “has sent out a lot of positive signals around the world.”

    “He has a very appealing persona — elegant, fluent, strings lots of sentences together into paragraphs,” Cox said. “But in terms of (his) actual policies towards the Middle East, Iraq, Iran, China, Europe — actually, we don’t know.”

    One thing I learned in all of the years I’ve lived outside the United States is that when foreigners are happy with our government, it’s because our government is doing something against our own interests.

    They claim that they don’t know anything about Obama’s policies towards the rest of the planet, but they really do. He’s going to give them our stuff. Obama won’t hesitate to trade off our national security for a moment’s smile at the camera. He’ll drag bags of money to North Korea like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. He’ll make empty promises to Africans and throw our tax payers dollars at them…like Bill Clinton.

    See, we Americans need a President who’ll represent us on the world stage, because the whole rest of the world wants our stuff…free. And if our President is dead set towards pleasing the rest of the world, we’re going to be out there all by ourselves, cuz there’ll be no one between us and the world treating us like a gigantic rummage sale.

  • Historic? Why? (Updated)

    r1435545905.jpg

    Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “I Have a Dream” speech said he looked forward to the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. As I troll the regular newspapers and wire services, I see that we’ve failed in that regard. Nearly every headline screams that we’ve got the first Black candidate running for the office of President. That appears to be his only qualification for the office, and hardly reason enough to vote for him.

    The content of his character hardly makes him a viable candidate. He associates with racists, he’s wrapped up in crooked real estate deals, he flaunts his friendship with unrepentant domestic terrorist bombers. His proposed policies are regurgitated failed populist policies long since discredited. His negligible foreign policy experience has made him dependent on pseudo-intellectuals and a failed president of a failed presidency.

    Even members of his own party have called him an empty suit – hardly supportive of the content of his character. The only reason the Democrats even vote for him is because they think that no one would dare criticize him for fear of offending 12% of the US population. If a white man of Obama’s qualifications and experience were running for president, he’d have been left in the dust long ago during the primary race. It’s almost as if we’ve instituted an affirmative action program in our political process.

    I keep hearing about how Democrats are going to reunite America, but their candidate promises only divisiveness, not because of the color of his skin, but because he’s shown that he’s more than willing to hide behind the color of his skin for the entire campaign and probably into his presidency.

    So how is Obama’s candidacy historic, other than the fact that his melanin levels are higher than the other Presidents who all looked alike according to my local news program last night. I doubt Abraham Lincoln would concede that he looks like William Howard Taft. I can imagine the email I’d get if I said all of the Japanese emperors looked alike.

    It’s historic if you only see race – but being President means being everyone’s President. I don’t think Obama has given us reasons to think he can be everybody’s president.

    When he said last night “This is our time” he was only talking to half of the Democrat party, and none of the Republican Party. So whose time is it? Did anyone think he was talking to them?

    UPDATED: D. of The Dillard Doctrine answers my “Why?”

  • Obama’s Iranian advisor; Part II

    I’ve been pouring through some of the material available on this Trita Parsi fellow who is advising Barack Obama on his Iran policy and as near as I can tell, Obama is relying strictly on this one guy based strictly on his one book. In this BBC interview, Parsi states unequivocally that diplomatic relations should begin with Iran without preconditions so as not to derail the negotiations.

    [youtube Eepaf5aCpBI nolink]

    From Barack Obama’s campaign website;

    Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

    In this screen shot of an exerpt from Parsi’s book, he expalins that we Americans are just a bunch of ignorant asses who believe that the problem in the Middle East is between a democracy (Israel) and a tyrannic regime and that we believe that because we believe everything the Israelis tell us to believe instead of a clash of cultures;

    untitled001.jpg

    Except we understand all of that and we didn’t need Obama or Parsi to tell us. From what I’ve read of Parsi’s book (admittedly just excerpts on Amazon), the West are just a bunch of rubes who don’t understand the Iranian’s true intentions. In this interview for the CFR, Parsi actually argues that the Iranians don’t have nuclear ambitions, they just want to look like they do…then stop developing the nukes just short of the actual warheads;

    Well, I think they definitely are looking for a nuclear option, being — as you mentioned — like Japan or Sweden or Belgium — having the capability to be able to go for a nuclear weapon, but stopping short of that. And that is exactly the same approach that the Shah took during the 1970s. He wanted to have the option, but he also recognized the strategic disadvantage for Iran to actually go for a weapon.

    […]

    So the Iranians do have strong incentives not going for a nuclear weapon, but because of them living in a very tough neighborhood, they definitely want to have the option. And I think that’s what they’re aiming for now. I don’t think they have made a strategic decision to go for a weapon, but if tensions between the United States and Iran were to increase further, then that decision would probably be reassessed.

    So I guess we just cross our fingers and hope that even though they go through all of the motions, they stop short of the goal. I guess that’s part of that “Hope” mantra from the Obama campaign.

    In this interview on CNN, Parsi waves away Ahmadinejad’s letter to the UN last year condemning liberal western democracies in an attempt to bully the West to delay sanctions. Parsi says it’s a plea for negotiations with the US, when it’s clearly not. He goes on to blame the US for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, when there are a 160 other nations in the UN – why does the US have to talk with everyone?

    [youtube -ijxxRrBQ-I nolink]

    Parsi, of course, doesn’t mention the fact that relations with the Islamic Republic began with the seizure of our embassy and holding 50 hostages for 444 days. Ahmadinejad happens to be one of the perpetrators of that international crime. In this lecture to the Congressional Progressive caucus, Parsi falsely claims that the Bush Administration didn’t have a foreign policy towards Iran in the first four years. When did he make the “axis of evil” speech?

    [youtube wPFgktONas4 nolink]

    There’s always been a national policy towards Iran – just because Mr. Parsi disagrees with it, that doesn’t make it nonexistent. But Parsi’s philosophy shows through on Obama’s campaign website;

    Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them. That’s why Obama stood up to the Bush administration’s warnings of war, just like he stood up to the war in Iraq.

    As a result of Obama listening to this bumbling halfwit hiding behind his sheepskins, Obama has become and easy target for John McCain (New York Times link);

    “We hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,” Mr. McCain said at the pro-Israel lobby’s convention in Washington. “Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another.”

    The Obama campaign countered that Mr. McCain “stubbornly insists on continuing a dangerous and failed foreign policy that has clearly made the United States and Israel less secure,” adding that during the Bush administration Iran had made gains with its nuclear program, that it had expanded its influence in the region through groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and that Hamas had taken over Gaza.

    Obama and Parsi just figure that since the Bush Administration hasn’t been able to unscrew what Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton left us, simply do the complete opposite. But that’s the way stuff happens on Bizzarro World.

  • Barry Sure Nailed it on that Surge Thingy

    “This continues to be a disastrous foreign policy mistake,” he said. “There are bad options and worse options.” Senator Barack Obama, Cocker Patraeus hearings

    Barry has repeatedly said that the surge was fool hearty and doomed to failure. He was wrong.

    He’s still preaching to the mouth-breathing, mindless peaceniks that he will start an immediate troop withdrawal. And he will continue to say this…until he is elected.

    Remember the Samantha Power interview?

    In an interview with the BBC program HARDtalk, Power was asked about Barack Obama’s plan to remove American troops from Iraq. In her response, she described the candidate’s tight withdrawal timetable as “a best-case scenario,” which he would “revisit” once elected.
    …….
    “You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009.

    Read that as: Once you retards elect me, I’ll do whatever I damn well please.

    Just yesterday the Messiah again claimed that Iraq was distracting from the effort in Afghanistan which is quickly becoming another quagmire. This was a point that apparently leaders on the ground in Afghanistan aren’t aware of.

    Despite Obama’s assertions that Iraq is distracting from the fight in Afghanistan, this new report from the front lines emerges:

    Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have “decapitated” the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a “tipping point”, the commander of British forces has said.

    The new “precise, surgical” tactics have killed scores of insurgent leaders and made it extremely difficult for Pakistan-based Taliban leaders to prosecute the campaign, according to Brig Mark Carleton-Smith.

    Maybe Barry should talk to Hillary about a “willing suspension of disbelief”?

  • Obama’s Iranian advisor

    tp_portrait.jpg

    Yesterday, on Gateway Pundit, I read that Obama had an Iranian on his staff, so I did some research and found Trita Parsi’s website. It seems that Parsi is indeed Iranian by birth, but he was raised in Sweden. Do I think he’s an agent of Iran? No, not directly. But the fact that he’s on Obama’s staff and an advisor on Iran is fairly disturbing, not because of his ethnicity, but because of his scholarly work.

    I haven’t read his book Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel and the United States (Yale University Press, 2007), but what I’ve found in interviews should cause alarm. In John Hopkins Magazine;

    Among Parsi’s primary conclusions is that for years the U.S. and others have misunderstood the relationship between Iran and Israel, and that misunderstanding has played to those countries’ interests. “The most important false perception,” he says, “is that the conflict is ideologically driven.” He argues that for too long, Western governments and opinion-makers have looked at the two nations and seen an intractable ideological conflict between a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy and the Middle East’s only democracy. He says that actually Israel and Iran are rational pragmatists who have nurtured this wrong idea. Iran maintains the support of Arab countries and diverts attention from its own hegemonic ambitions by portraying itself as the vanguard of Islam and a selfless supporter of the Palestinians’ struggle with Israel. In turn, as long as Israel can portray the conflict as a fight between a democracy and a theocracy ruled by “mad mullahs,” it is assured of support from the U.S. and Europe.

    One danger for the U.S., says Parsi, is that misconceptions limit its options. For example, if Iran’s government is seen as irrational and driven only by ideology, that rules out diplomacy or deterrence. How do you negotiate with or deter someone who is not rational? That leaves military action as one of the few remaining options, and a military strike could serve Israel’s interests more than those of the U.S. Parsi says, “If you wanted to convince the United States to take military action against Iran, that is the tack you would take.”

    Parsi claims that we (the US) are too susceptible to Israeli propaganda that Iran hates Israel because it’s a democracy. Um, why would we believe that since Ahmadinejad constantly makes references to the Holocaust when speaking about Israel? Hitler didn’t hate the Jews because they supported democratic government, for pete’s sake.

    Parsi tries to make the point that the Islamic Republic is not irrational – arming forces in Iraq to fight against the US when we haven’t threatened Iran’s interests is fairly irrational. Holocaust denial as a national policy is fairly irrational. Building nuclear weapons to eradicate a neighbor is fairly irrational.

    Parsi fails to recognize that nearly every leader in the region has positioned himself as a champion against the Jews – including Saddam Hussein. Did we misunderstand Hussein’s intention, too?

    No, it’s not Parsi’s birthplace that’s disturbing, it’s his politics and it’s no wonder that Obama thinks he can reason with the Islamic Republic’s leaders – he’s been misled by an idiot scholar who happens to be Iranian by birth.

    The Infidel Bloggers Alliance has videos of Parsi. I’ll have to look at them later, when I’m through earning my pittance for the day.