The FLOTUS Is Snooty
May 3, 2011 Political
A reporter for a small town paper removed an item she had written in a column after the paper received a call from the White House asking that it be removed. The White House was worried it made the First Lady of the US look “snooty.”
Amory Gutierrez of the Pleasanton Weekly in California wrote a piece about Marine One, the Presidential helicopter. Guitierrez wrote that she did not get to ride in Marine One but she got a VIP tour. She then wrote that the First lady did not speak to the pilots but acknowledged them by eye contact. This sentence received the attention of the White House because of the concern that it made the First Lady look snooty.
I do not know the context in which it was written but I think that it meant that when Michelle Obama boarded she did not talk just acknowledged them by making eye contact to let them know she was boarding. I could be off base here and maybe she does not talk to them. In any event, why change the story if it is an accurate portrayal of the events? Because the Obama regime likes to control the media (Socialists like to do that) and it likes to control the message.
Gutierrez removed the item because she said it was not a big enough deal to argue over and that might be true but every little bit that is given, more is taken. This is not the first time the Obama regime has tried to control the press. Recently, a reporter was banned from the White House pool and the paper was forbidden from discussing the incident (the Constitution means nothing to them) which it promptly did (good for it). Let us not forget how it has tried to manipulate and exclude FOX.
Gutierrez sums it up with this:
She added, “I thought it was interesting, though, that the [White House] was concerned enough about image to contact a little weekly paper in Pleasanton.” Daily Caller
She is right. Why worry about a little paper where it might have gone unnoticed? Instead the story now has national attention because it is at the Daily Caller and was on the front page of Drudge. That will likely get more attention than an article in a small paper even if the article made its way around the internet from that paper. The DC and Drudge get a lot of traffic.
The FLOTUS is snooty. She feels entitled, thinks that she should tell you how to feed your kids, and sends her kids to a snooty school.
I have no problem with her being snooty because that is who she is but I do have a problem with the White House trying to mold the image and dictate the story.
In any event, she has every right to be snooty. She is married to the smartest man in the world who was able to play nine holes of golf, hop a plane to Pakistan, board a helicopter, rappel into a compound under heavy fire, fight his way to the top floor of a house and then shoot and kill Osama bin Laden, change clothes and give a briefing to America, and then take the body to a US aircraft carrier, prepare it for burial, say a eulogy, tip the board and send the body to the bottom of the sea and then fly back to the US in time to have breakfast with the kids.
At least that is how his sycophants are portraying it…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bin laden, flotus, freedom of the press, Obama, snooty
Around The Horn; News Of Democrat Folly
Feb 2, 2010 Political
Spend our way out of recession?
Democrat James Clyburn says we need to spend our way out of the recession (and I thought it was already over):
“We’re not going to save our way out of this recession,” the majority whip added. “We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that.” The Hill
No country has ever spent its way out of a recession and the only economists who believe we can are the ones who do not know what they are doing. You would not spend more to get your family’s out of control budget in order and no one in his right mind actually thinks that it is possible to spend one’s way to prosperity.
Obama awards no bid contract
Barack Obama and the Democrats all screamed about no bid contracts when Bush was in office (that evil Halliburton) though they never made a sound when Bill Clinton awarded that company no bid contracts. Nevertheless, Obama said that practice would be limited and that competition was necessary to keep the cost of contracts down. However, he awarded a no bid to the company of one of his financial contributors.
The recent awarding of a lucrative federal contract to a company owned by a financial contributor to the Obama presidential campaign — without competitive bidding — “violated” President Obama’s many campaign pledges to crack down on the practice, a top State Department official told Fox News. Jammie Wearing Fool
The argument could be made that he said it would be limited so he did not violate a promise. Surely some contracts have to be no bid because some companies are the only ones that perform certain tasks. Of course this is the case with Halliburton but this did not stop Democrats from howling like scalded dogs. In any event, this no bid should never have been awarded. Even if there is a way to prove that it was necessary or proper, the fact that it was awarded to a financial contributor smacks of cronyism. It looks wrong and perception is often reality. The left said that contracts to Halliburton benefited Cheney (they did not) and that was their opposition to the no bids it received. Funny how there is no mention of the Obama no bid award which does benefit someone who supported him…
About those 9/11 terrorists tried in civilian courts
Dana Perino spells out the facts about 9/11 terrorist trials:
First, the only civilian trial of a 9/11 terrorist was Moussaoui who was arrested before 9/11 had even happened and before the President had authorized detaining terrorists as enemy combatants.
Second, Moussaoui had his trial while the entire military commission system was under sustained legal attack by left-wing lawyers, which put all military commission trials on hold. So he couldn’t have been tried by military commission back then any way. Gateway Pundit
This sets the record straight for those who act as if we have tried a million 9/11 terrorists in civilian courts.
And why those terrorist animals should be in Gitmo (didn’t Obama close that place?)
Speaking of terrorists, here is why they should all be kept at Gitmo:
I was a federal prison guard at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan. In 2000, I was with a prisoner, Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, taking him back to his cell. His cellmate was Khalfan Khamis Mohamed. They were accused of bombing two embassies in Africa in 1998. Later they said that they worked with Osama bin Laden and that they helped set up al Qaeda.
We were back at their cell. It’s only me and those two guys. No supervisors. Just the three of us. Somehow, they slipped out of their handcuffs.
They sprayed me with some kind of hot sauce. I couldn’t see. They pulled me into the cell and hit me — boom, boom. They hit me so much, I swear to God, like a hundred times.
I hit my radio. I thought help would come.
They wanted the keys for the other prisoners, but they couldn’t find them. They were in my front pocket. I used to be big, 300 pounds, and I was laying on them. I gave them my car keys.
About halfway through, they used a comb — thick and long, about 10 inches, with a handle. They’d taken the teeth out and sharpened it like a knife.
They put it in my left eye. It went three inches into my brain. Read the rest and see a picture of the guy who was attacked at The New York Post
Those animals should have been at Gitmo and this would not have happened. Perhaps they need to be water boarded a few hundred times to take away some of their energy.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: bin laden, dana perino, james clyburn, lies, Obama, recession
It Was Only Just A Dream
Jul 15, 2009 Political
Well, the alleged leader of the CIA, Leon “I’ll kiss the feet of the messiah” Panneta, canceled a program idea that had been batted around in the meeting rooms of the spy agency- a possible way by which we could capture or kill Al-Qaida operatives without all that pesky “collateral damage”, and the dems are pissed off that they were not informed.
Informed of what? An idea? dream? Something that never made it out of even the earliest stages of speculation? Why? Why in God’s name should they be informed of everybody’s dream?
This was talk- talk around a table by members of an organization that is specifically tasked to talk about such scenarios, but the members of Congress, who are so leaky that they need Depends on a 24/7 basis, feel left out and outraged that they hadn’t given these people permission to speculate this way.
The plans remained vague and were never carried out, the officials said, and Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, canceled the program last month.
Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation? Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?
nytimes.com
Yes, it’s trouble in River City, with all that pesky diplomatic folderol to wade through. We just have to tell these countries our plans- that is as stupid as telling Congress, and just as leaky. The program should have been as black an ops program as possible, but when the head of the spy agency is an incompetent political hack, used for only one purpose, and that is to spy for his master, this is what you get.
Mr. Panetta scuttled the program, which would have relied on paramilitary teams, shortly after the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center recently informed him of its existence. The next day, June 24, he told Congressional Intelligence Committees that the plan had been hidden from lawmakers, initially at the instruction of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
The program was designed in the frantic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks when PresidentGeorge W. Bush signed a secret order authorizing the C.I.A. to capture or kill operatives ofAl Qaeda around the world. To be able to kill Osama bin Laden or his top deputies wherever they might be — even in cities or countries far from a war zone — struck top agency officials as an urgent goal, according to people involved in the discussions.
nytimes.com
I know, this isn’t the movies, where left- wing actors get to act as if they had a pair, and try to act macho, this is the real world, where we haven’t enough Farsi speakers, and the people who most look like terrorists are Hispanic in origin, and virtually NONE of them speak Farsi, Urdu, or Pashto, a crippling deficiency that the Democrats exacerbated by downsizing the human intel aspect of the CIA in the Clinton era (Clinton has much to answer for on the intel side of his “legacy”- he must be SO proud).
Still, you might think a program that at least tries to minimize the killing of women and children would be viewed as a “good” thing, but nooooooooo. Not in the miniscule minds of the Democrat Congress, that is for sure, but this is driven solely by their hatred of all things Bush, nothing more.
Oh, I will admit it takes someone willing to gird their loins against the criticism that will surely come from the cowardly side that holds its finger in the wind, the better to see which way the political wind blows- that side will never have your back, because they are too busy protecting theirs.
When the rest of the world won’t have the fortitude to protect civilization, someone has to step up- will it be the liberals? Oh no- they do not know how,nor do they have the testicular fortitude to say that this needs to be done.
And they certainly do not know when to step back and shut up with their incessant carping.
After all, it was only just a dream.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: assassination, bin laden, CIA, spineless liberals
By George, Bin Laden Was Responsible
Feb 23, 2009 Political
Don Surber has a post up describing who was resonsible for the bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not George Bush as the left has contended for nearly seven years. You know, Bush lied people died, no blood for oil, blah, blah. I know that it will be hard for the 1960s dope smoking retread hippies to actually grasp this concept but the co-founder of al-Qaeda does not blame George Bush for the bloodshed. I know that when the Berkeley moonbats are sipping their lattes and reading their Communist newspapers they will choke on their tofu if anyone draws their attention to who is really to blame.
According to the guy who helped bin Laden found al-Qaeda (among others), Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, Osama bin Laden is the one responsible for all the bloodshed. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif reveals all this in the book he wrote while in prison in Egypt. So get ready moonbats and other America haters because this is what he said:
“Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers.”
Oh snap, that is going to hurt in the morning. George Bush was not responsible and his efforts are actually bearing fruit as this bad guy gives his assessment on 9/11 and other acts of terror:
The 9/11 attacks? “Ramming America has become the shortest road to fame and leadership among the Arabs and Muslims. But what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy’s buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours? That, in short, is my evaluation of 9/11.”
Fifth Column attacks from people who migrate to Britain and other nations? “If they gave you permission to enter their homes and live with them, and if they gave you security for yourself and your money, and if they gave you the opportunity to work or study, or they granted you political asylum,” then it is “not honorable” to “betray them, through killing and destruction.” Don Surber
As Surber points out, the reason they no longer mention the global war on terrorism is because we may have won. The statements of the co-founder of al-Qaeda is certainly persuasive with regard to the idea.
In any event, bin Laden is the one responsible for the bloodshed. Not George Bush or anyone else. The moonbats in the Drive By Media and the moonbats at places like the Daily POS had it wrong all along.
Their BDS did not allow them to see otherwise. But then again, they are part of the problem and not part of the solution so what should anyone have expected…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 9/11, afghanistan, al-qaeda, bin laden, bloodshed, george bush, Iraq, terror attacks
American Enemy
Oct 10, 2008 Political
This is an interesting video from You Tube:
You are a reflection of the company you keep.