Poor Republican

“Iran’s government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham on Saturday urged the United States to change its policy towards Iran and the world, saying the country has no choice.”  He also said “negotiation is secondary” and that asking to talk “means the passivity of the Western thought.”

It’s far too late, but perhaps now some of the Obama voters who dismissed “right-wing extremists’ accusations” about Obama’s lack of experience, lack of foreign policy knowledge, and Muslim background will finally start to listen.

In his interview with the Arab television network, Obama played up his Muslim heritage.  Remember when anyone who brought that subject up was labeled a racist?  It’s right up there with his use of his middle name, which Republicans were scolded for doing.  Apparently when you’re kissing up to America’s Islamic enemies, it’s more effective when your name sounds like theirs and you make sure they know that you were (are?) one of them.  Just make sure you hide it from the electorate until after it’s too late.

Of course, it all depends on your definition of the word “effective.”

Conservatives warned repeatedly that the liberal insistence of talking to our enemies would cause them to draw the wrong conclusions about America.  History has shown that being the one to “make the first move towards peace” signals weakness to hostile nations, but liberals refuse to learn.

The constant flower children rhetoric of the Carter Administration signaled a green light for both the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets and the taking of the hostages at our embassy in Iran by “student radicals.”  A rarely-mentioned fact is that Obama is now offering the hand of friendship to one of the hostage takers, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Ahmadinejad’s response?  That America “should apologize to the Iranian people and try to make up for their past faults and crimes they committed against Iran (emphasis added).”  

That just happens to be the exact sort of response conservatives predicted.

The Clinton Administration’s complete failure of leadership in Somalia gave the green light to terrorists around the world.  They saw that if you inflicted some casualties on America, America would turn tail and run.  Hence the embassy bombings, the first World Trade Center attack, the attack on our barracks in Saudi Arabia, the Cole bombing, and eventually, 9/11 itself.  A long string of unanswered attacks because liberals in the Clinton Administration treated terrorists as a law enforcement problem instead of a military one.  Even the 9/11 Commission said that they were at war with us, but not we with them.

Those same liberals preached appeasement to Hitler.  They preached appeasement to North Vietnam.  They preached appeasement to the Soviet Union.  They preached appeasement to Islamic fascism.  And now their Great Leader is preaching it again about Iran and Islamic terrorists everywhere, and the initial response is telling.

By contrast, Hitler could not be taken down by talk.  It took a massive war.  North Vietnam could not be brought to the peace table by talk; it took Nixon’s order to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong into dust.  The Iranian hostage takers could not be cowed by Carter’s begging and lame attempt at using our sadly depleted military for a mission it was not trained or equipped for.  It took Reagan’s election and a promise not to attack Iran if they let the hostages go.  The long string of attacks on American targets during Clinton’s terms were not stopped by talk and passivity; they were stopped by a massive military assault, worldwide, on terrorists wherever they could be found.  And yes, waterboarding and secret CIA prisons helped.

Liberals will not give Bush credit….ever….but the fact is the fact.  There has not been a successful attack on American soil since 9/11.

Liberals never learn that apologizing for America to our enemies and offering to talk do not lead to peace, because they do not understand that our enemies are not civilized and that they see talking as a weakness.  They do not understand that the only way to answer hostility from a barbaric enemy is to kill him.  And we now have the most radical liberal ever elected in our history as our president.

Liberals hate the very concept that force is sometimes the only answer.  They hate guns because it implies that an individual would dare use deadly force against an attacker.  They hate the military because they know that it is used to apply deadly force to an attacker on the national level.  And they will never admit they were wrong.

Obama has already called for defense cuts.  A classic liberal, he makes us look weak in the eyes of our enemies, while making us actually weak by cutting our defense.  We are fighting TWO wars and he wants to cut 10% out of our military.  Meanwhile, his “stimulus” bill is as big as two years of the military’s budget.

When we are being marched off to prison or execution at the hands of whatever enemy the failed liberal policy of appeasement has caused us to fall to, the last breath of a liberal will be “if only I had thought of the right thing to say.”

And the conservatives who warned you will say “if only you hadn’t disarmed our country and banned our guns and taught our population to always depend on someone else to take care of them.”

Or more likely, we’ll just say we told you so.

Obama spent the week kissing up to Big Labor Unions and hiring lobbyists in violation of his promise not to.

Obama signed or is about to sign four executive orders designed to benefit Big Labor.  He’s also looking forward to signing the ironically named Employee Free Choice Act, which basically eliminates voting in forming labor unions.  It would instead allow unions to be formed by signing a card (thus the commonly used “card check” name for the bill).  It also means that if you are opposed to the union, it would allow union thugs to know who you are and pressure you.  This would not be the case in secret ballot voting, and Big Labor is clamoring for this bill.  Obama says he supports it.

Obama has said repeatedly that he would not govern for the special interests, and he claims that supporting these measures is for “working families,” which is in itself a nonsense term.  Does Obama mean that if you make $150k a year by running a business that you work at 60 hours a week you are not a “working family?”  After all, you make too much and you are not a member of a union!

And why is everything about “families?”  I guess if you’re single and busting your butt every day to scratch out a living, you don’t count either.

That aside, union membership is about 12% of all workers, or about 1 of every 8.  That means Obama is going out of his way to give special power to 1 out of every 8 people, instead of the other 7 who are not in unions.  In reality, he’s actually giving power to even fewer people than that, because in many states union membership is compulsory in many jobs.  That means the 12% union membership figure is deceptive; many people in unions have no choice about being in the union.  Obama isn’t helping them either.

When you are going out of your way to give power to 1 person in every 8 (or 10 or 12 taking into account the unwilling members of unions), how do you go out and claim, with a straight face, that you are not governing for special interests?

Obama is also lying about his administration’s “no lobbyist” policy.  He says his administration is “the most ethical,” then he immediately sets about breaking his own rules.  Here’s an entire list of people “waived” on those rules.  Even the new Treasury Secretary, Mr. “I don’t understand Turbotax” Geithner, immediately hired a lobbyist as his chief of staff….after publishing a bunch of “no lobbyist” rules for his Department of the Treasury.  His new top staffer, Mark Patterson, was a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.  He specifically lobbied Treasury, and now he’s chief of staff there.

So Obama, after promising an ethical, open administration that won’t govern for special interests or employ lobbyists, appoints a tax cheat to be in charge of the IRS, who then appoints a lobbyist to be his chief of staff.  Then he goes out of his way to empower Big Labor, which represents less than 1 person in 8 and probably less than 1 in 10.

If you’re a Republican, it’s easy to be confused by criticism that you’re not giving Obama’s policies a chance.

After all, it’s pretty obvious even Obama doesn’t support his own policies.

Yes, Obama, King Barack I, aka The Messiah, actually tried to walk through an Oval Office window, not realizing that it was not in fact a door.

This is the smartest man ever elected president, folks.  Imagine Bush doing this, and the media giving it little or no play.  You can’t, can you?  Even the story about this tries to take a swipe at Bush , as if trying to open a door that turns out to be locked is the same as trying to walk through a window which is not even a door.

He’s really doing well so far, isn’t he?

He flubs the oath of office.

He has an executive order signing, and has to keep asking White House counsel Greg Craig for his lines.

He walks down to the press room, and won’t let anyone ask him questions.  For some reason, Obama thinks the press only ask questions when he wants them to.  One could see how he’d feel that way, since that’s how it was during the campaign.

Now he’s trying to walk through windows.  I guess the lack of hinges or a door knob wasn’t much of a clue for His Highness.  But as he said, “we won,” so maybe he’ll have that window turned into a door so it won’t happen again.

Of course, the question for the Kool-Aid Brigade is whether he should never have made the mistake in the first place, since he’s so smart, or whether or not someone so messianic should have simply passed through the door like the god he’s been made out to be.

All over the country, if you listen very carefully, you can hear the murmured chants of every liberal who has seen that picture:  “It’s Bush’s fault….It’s Bush’s fault…..It’s Bush’s fault….”

Too bad their Birkenstocks’ heels won’t click when the bang them together, eh?