Bill Clinton in email to me, hoping I’ll take him seriously: “I hope you’ll pay attention, Joel.”

I did pay attention. Mostly because I find it audacious to presume to call me “Joel” when he doesn’t even know who in tarnation I am.

It was also because whenever Bill Clinton speaks, I find it sort of risible and contemptible (unlike when Barack Obama speaks, which I find irksome, full of lies, and animosity toward much of America).

When Bill Clinton starts a lecture with the words “I hope you’ll pay attention,” it naturally causes a reflex reaction in me. I mean aside from the gag reflex in which I cough up a little something. The very instant I started reading it, I thought of his scraggly figure pointed at me and at America, and his infamous lie about having sex with his underling in the White House, which I’m sure he did as a sign of his great respect for women, as all Democrats do, in his non-War On Women while he was President of the United States:

“I wanna say one thing… I want you to listen to me. I’m gonna say this again.

“I did not, have, sexual relations with that woman…”

His email to me began like this (imagine his scraggly figure pointing at me):

“I hope you’ll pay attention, Joel.

“That’s because it will immediately be put to use — if your $5 (for example) goes toward hiring an organizer in Akron, Ohio, she’ll have more time to do her job and reach more voters. And that’s how elections are won.”

She’ll have more time to “do her job,” huh? I know how certain “jobs” are of great concern to you, “Bill.”

 

Idiocyphiliacs

Occasionally I come across words I like. When I need a new ones I just make words up for my amusement. Yeah, I may need to get out more. The one in my headline is a BS term I created just now, but it’s an excellent term you too can use at home to describe your liberal friends to your more sensible ones.

I came across an actual word in a passage in a James Taranto column this week in which he discusses something that has always interested me, and I never even knew there was a name for it: “oikophobia.”

President Obama of the USA, I think: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

That’s the malady so many liberals and not a few Jews suffer from, wherein for usually stupid and political reasons (few or none of them logical or credible), they strike out at… themselves; and at people like themselves, and what they believe, what they look like, their race, their nation, their nationality, their religion, their sex, their sexual preference, and so on. They seem to think that doing this will boost their political or social cause, or at least (and this is often just as, or more important to them), make them personally look or feel cool, superior, or brave and audacious. And as ever so “tolerant” and “inclusive”. And moreover, part of the kewl trendy set to which they so yearn to belong.

Here’s a snippet:

“… oikophobia. They have an antipathy for people like themselves–Americans, Christians. Their seeming sympathy for Islam … is really just a reflex to side with the “other” because it makes them feel superior to those in their own in-group. …”

This goes a long way to helping explain (or at least identify) one of Barack Obama’s maladies, a symptom of which is that he goes around the world apologizing for America. Similarly, so many of those rich Democrats (Warren Buffet, John Kerry, any Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, the CEO of many Democratic Party-supporting corporate cronies, nearly all of the Hollyweird nuts…) who go around falsely touting their phoney yearning for an increase in income taxes for “the rich.”

Listen to this podcast on the topic by James Taranto

 

To be, or not to be absolutely ridiculous. Obama is to be questioned.

I nearly choked on my blueberry-laden Cheerios/Michelle O-approved sustainable consumption material this morning, as I listened to the President of the United States/or at least some weird part of it tell the world, at the U.N./socialism-a-palooza this morning, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Well then. Oh how grand. At last for a leader of an extremist Islamist nation. I’m not sure who he was actually speaking for, or even what he was saying, at this point.

Of course he (reminder: the President of the United States) was referring to the inane construct that the Left/and of course the media has been foisting on us to deflect from the fact that Obama’s foreign policy is and always has been a joke, is in utter shambles, and is a dismal failure. This was but a continuation, on a global scale, of their rather insulting effort to make dumb-dumbs/undecideds, and much of their base, and Europeans believe that the infamous anti-Islamic YouTube teaser was the cause of the Islamist anti-American murder, terrorism, and savagery going on around the world.

David Burge iowahawhawblog.com

David Burge’s
iowahawhawblog Twitter pic

THAT was the U.S. President’s big message on behalf of his peeps/his peeps.

And then he tootled off, back to his/the taxpayer’s campaign plane/Air Force One, to campaign, without even meeting one world leader while he was there, although he was surrounded by world leaders including Islamic ones and the leader of the Jewish one in many of their missile targets, marking the first time a president has failed to meet with world leaders at the U.N. in person, while he and all of them were there anyway, in decades.

As if to restore my faith in America/normal people with brains, this immediately resulted in myriad Twitter tweets, shining a light on Obama’s great/fabled “intelligence” once again, featuring this one, which echoed my sentiments exactly:

(In case the above Twitter snip doesn’t work when you’re viewing this, the Tweet reads:

David Burge@iowahawkblog

“Ask not what your country can do for you” “tear down this wall” “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam”

Of course other great quotes come to mind immediately: “I did not have sex with that woman,” “it depends on what your definition of the word is, is,” and “you dint built that.”

But I prefer the simple, sensible, vote for Romney/Ryan and Republicans.

The play’s the thing: Mark Steyn on the Obama admin’s utter failures

As if I had to tell you, columnist Mark Steyn wrote the best piece regarding the latest example of total, epic failure on the part of the Obama administration: the global Islamist chaos.

Disgrace in Benghazi

 

Middle East Mayhem: Congrats Obama,You Built That

Remember back in the beginning of 2011 when Obama told us about the freedom lovers in Egypt and Libya living under the oppression of dictators and needing our immediate help to establish democracy in their fair lands?

You do? So do I. How weird. We should become best friends. Facebook me.

Anyway … it turns out that the “freedom lovers” Obama coerced lots of Americans to rally behind (and whom he also pimped out with billions of sawbucks from America’s pitiful piggy bank) were bat crap crazy.

I’m talking crazy on steroids crazy—and not just peaceful crazy like Joe Biden but rather hide-sharp-objects-from-them, menopausal wolverine sow crazy.

Yep, these “yearners for democracy” turned out to be radicals of radicals who’d like nothing more than to eradicate the U.S. and Israel and establish a global bounce house for all things Muslim.

Whoopsie, eh Mr. President? You kind of misjudged that one, señor.

At least I hope Obama misjudged their end game because if he had even an inkling that they would quickly blossom into full-blown anti-America/Israel hate machines then that would make some folks think that our president … um … uh … doesn’t have our … how shall I say … our best interests or our allies’ best interests at heart.

I’ve gotta admit that at the beginning of the Arab Spring I thought these freedom lovers seemed a bubble off level. I mean … I didn’t want to judge, but I wasn’t getting that Jeffersonian vibe from the video feeds coming across the wire; it was stuff like burning the American flag, raping one of our female correspondents, looting their pyramids and decapitating multitudinous mummies that caused me some consternation.

But that’s just me, and who am I? I could be wrong. Or a racist. Or both. Maybe the Arab Spring—like Obama’s economic policies—just needs a little more time to pan out. That’s probably it.

However, the events of this past week in Cairo and Benghazi on September 11th kind of make me feel like this “Spring” is stuck on stupid, and now, thanks to Obama’s backing, we have one violent, jacked-up mess on our hands—one that won’t be remedied easily … and one to which we can point to the president as someone who built that.

Islamist jihad against West rages

As Americans stopped to mark the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and ponder how much the world has changed during these years, an ocean away more terrorist attacks were mounted on American interests in the Middle East.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, with three members of his staff and several Libyans, was an act of war by men indoctrinated with the same ideology of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden is dead and so is Ayatollah Khomeini, but the war they declared against the “satanic” West continues. The West, on the other hand, has opted to be an ostrich.

The result is more than a decade after hijacked jetliners plowed into tall buildings in New York, Islamists are ascendant across the Middle East and hoisting their Shariah-based totalitarian ideology. The U.S. under the Obama administration stands instead as having reverted back to the pre-9/11 mentality.

The American election is barely seven weeks away and the Islamist jihad against the “Crusaders,” in the language of al-Qaida’s founder, will very likely get obscured in the fog of political debates and recriminations in the U.S.

But there is no mistaking that an apologetic West, as represented by President Obama, emboldened the Islamists, resulting in the manner in which the so-called Arab Spring unfolded.

The abandonment of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt accompanied by the embrace of Muslim Brotherhood is turning out to be a repeat of Iran in 1979 when Khomeini swept into power.

It is extraordinary that an apologetic America, as President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo symbolized, and Europe with its appeasement mind-set cannot get their act together in compelling a third world rogue state, Iran, to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons capability or face dire military consequences. This failure to disarm Iran while embracing Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — the political grandfather of all the various Islamist offsprings in the greater Middle East and beyond — makes the present situation eerily similar to the 1930s.

What needs to be done, and should have been done by the previous Bush administration, is to take a page from George Kennan — the architect of President Truman’s policy against the Soviet Union — and update his strategy of containment for the Arab-Muslim world. The Arab-Muslim world deserves to be isolated and contained, as was the former Soviet Union. An Iron Curtain, in Winston Churchill’s memorable words, should descend separating the West and its allies from the Arab-Muslim world until the latter has exhausted itself of its own demons.

The situation America, and by its default the West, finds itself in relation to the Arab-Muslim world is to a large extent, ironically, the result of its own guilt-ridden attitude and political correctness. This state of mind, or multiculturalism, gravely inhibits a realistic assessment of 9/11 and what has followed.

The explanation on offer that this new wave of Muslim rage was ignited by a crudely amateurish docu-drama about Islam’s prophet, and the individual responsible must be severely punished, is pathetic in describing a guilt-ridden West seeking to placate the Arab-Muslim world.

Islamists are at war, and the West needs to respond accordingly.

 

On Taxes, Obama and Romney Obfuscate

Democrats are fond of saying that Republicans rely too heavily on tax cuts in their economic proposals. In reality, Mitt Romney’s tax plan is not only tepid and incomplete, but he has neglected to expose the true destructiveness of Democratic policies.

Absent an effective Republican rejoinder, President Barack Obama gleefully mocks GOP tax prescriptions, including in his address to the Democratic National Convention: “Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the mornin’,” the president quipped in that painfully pandering, g-droppin’ manner he sometimes deploys, to the admiration of Harry Reid.

Obama characterizes tax cuts as contrary to his concept of “citizenship” and detrimental to progress in fields from medicine to technology and beyond. It is emblematic of the modern Democratic party, and the Left in general, that a person can rise through its ranks, even to the office of president, while remaining ignorant of the demonstrable truth that lower tax rates often lead to economic growth and higher tax revenues.

A particularly nonsensical Democratic talking point is that lower taxes – “the Bush tax cuts,” in their misnomer – are “what got us into this mess in the first place.” But in the four years after 2003, when the second phase of Bush’s tax plan was enacted, tax revenues increased by over $700 billion. Romney’s refusal to point this out explains, in part, why he persistently trails in the polls.

And it is not as though the country’s tax burden is light. America has the highest corporate taxes in the world, while claiming a greater share of personal income than its largest trading partner, Canada – and Obama seeks to push these rates even higher.

Beyond the rates, the Byzantine nature of the US tax system, including its worldwide reporting requirements, creates an expensive and inhospitable economic environment and disadvantages Americans overseas. Romney has offered a vague plan to eliminate the double-taxation of international US businesses but, without specifics, even Joe Biden is comfortable disdaining it.

“It’s called a territorial tax,” the vice president scoffed to the DNC, with apparent confusion. This evinces an unfortunate American myopia, whereby something that is commonplace in the rest of the world is held up and marveled at like a glowing rock that fell from space. It is particularly galling in this case because the “territorial tax” Biden considers so otherworldly was, in fact, a key recommendation of Obama’s own Jobs Council.

This same blinkered perception applies to the tax burden on US citizens living abroad. A record number of Americans renounced their citizenship last year and, if Obama is re-elected and enacts his massive tax hikes and expanded reporting requirements, the number of renunciations will increase. Invariably, such news brings howls of “good riddance” from “These-Colors-Don’t-Run” nincompoops who do not understand that their erstwhile compatriots are not dodging their taxes, but escaping anomalous, extra-territorial demands placed on them by the IRS. As a consequence of this institutional stance that US citizens remain government property, wherever they reside in the world, Americans living abroad enjoy less financial freedom than ex-pats of the People’s Republic of China.

The solution is simple: American individuals and businesses should be required to file and pay taxes only in their country of residence – just like the citizens of almost every other nation on Earth. For all his economic acumen, Romney has not made this straightforward proposal.

But perhaps most troubling is Romney’s inability to translate Obama’s tax policy as it pertains to jobs.

Two-thirds of American companies are small businesses, known as Chapter-S corporations, and they pay taxes at the same rates as individuals. This is not widely understood by the general public, or by politicians – indeed, a senior Congressional Republican recently told me that half the House Budget Committee was unaware of this fact. Moreover, these small businesses create 70 percent of America’s new jobs.

So, when Obama talks of raising taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” or, equally absurdly, “those who can afford it,” he is saying he will raise taxes on small business. Whether he realizes this or not, one cannot know (and those who still suppose Obama’s brilliance precludes him making such rudimentary mistakes should consider the tax burden of the average Navy “corpse-man,” whether he is stationed overseas or in one of the 57 states). Either way, Obama’s plan cripples job-creation.

If Romney wants to win this election, he must clarify his tax proposals – while exposing Obama’s, as well.

 

Barack Obama ‘concept’ goes stale

Four years later and what a difference this makes in the cycle of America’s presidential election.

Four years ago enough Americans decided to vote into the White House a man with a slim resume, no executive experience in the private sector or government, and a history of association with individuals of dubious public record.

The recent edition of Newsweek ­— with Republicans gathered in Tampa, Fla., for their national convention to nominate Mitt Romney as their candidate for president and Paul Ryan as his running mate — has on its cover President Obama and the feature essay by Harvard historian Niall Ferguson titled “Hit the Road, Barack.”

The surprise was not Ferguson’s razor-sharp exposure of President Obama’s failed record, but that a magazine known for its ultra left-liberal editorial slant would run such a cover story. Even more surprising was how quickly this edition of Newsweek sold out.

I could not find a copy driving back from a family vacation in any of my several stops at newsstands and bookstores between Orlando, Fla., and Niagara Falls, NY. It could well be an early intimation of the ground shifting under the feet of the present occupant of the White House.

There is buyer’s remorse among a wide swath of Americans for having bought into the “hope and change” baloney of candidate Obama in 2008. The obvious question is whether enough Americans, especially those registered as independent, will vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket in less than 10 weeks and make Obama a one-term president like Jimmy Carter.

Americans searching for answers as to how the country got snookered into voting for Obama can pick up an impressive list of books examining his story that went mostly unexamined by the mainstream media in 2008. This body of work will grow over time as sentiments surrounding the first black president in America’s history recede.

In the Newsweek essay Ferguson writes, “the question confronting the country nearly four years later is . . . whether [the president] has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.”

Ferguson has been roundly attacked by Democrats and their partisans in the media and academia for his assessment of Obama presidency. But the ferocity of this attack also reveals how nervous Democrats and their friends are as Americans review Obama’s dismal economic record in the White House.

In 2008 Obama was shielded by the liberal-left media. During the 2008 primary the late Geraldine Ferraro — a life-long Democrat, a congresswoman from New York and the first woman nominated as vice-presidential candidate for a major party in the 1984 election — spoke out in frustration.

Ferraro said, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any colour, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

In 2012 Obama has a record from which he cannot run despite the same media’s effort to distract the public and smear his opponents. The concept Ferraro referred to has gone stale, and likely enough Americans want to correct their mistake of four years ago.

David Limbaugh makes the case: Here’s just SOME of Obama’s divisive failures

I’ve repeatedly written about how I’ve found Barack Obama, despite his now obvious campaign ’08 lies about being “post-partisan” and offering a new style of politics, to be the most partisan, and negative, and spiteful, and divisive president in my memory, and possibly ever. 

Just recently, I ridiculed the hideous remarks he made to an Entertainment Tonight reporter (who lapped it up like a starving dog) in which he said (in all seriousness): anybody who’s watching me couldn’t possibly dispute that I’m obviously not even the slightest bit divisive and that I’m all about the unity and bringing Americans together (to paraphrase him) wherein, as usual, he then glibly goes on to label and disparage different groups and even individuals, and generally divide the nation and embroil America in a state of disunity.

My article was called This week in idiocy: Obama makes hideous, false claim, his media sucks it up, swallows. I wrote:

Obama is a divider. I mean that’s his whole shtick.

You and everyone who has been watching the campaign would say that he has tried to divide the country  –  into rich versus poor, union versus non-union, government against private sector, black versus white, women versus men, “his” America versus the real America. He has clearly tried to bring the country apart. That has been his obvious strategy.

[...]

Now columnist David Limbaugh has written an excellent piece on this, culminating in this list of blunders (or lies, or egregious frauds, or any of several names you could give it):

Obama Hasn’t Been Divisive? You Can’t Be Serious

[... ]

Indeed, there is not enough space in a column to chronicle all of Obama’s polarizing conduct even as an abridged list, but let me give you a flavor of it. In addition to the foregoing, he and his team:

–Called American businesses soft and lazy and said they’d lost their ambition; they didn’t build that; they need to up their game.

–Baselessly accused the Chamber of Commerce of accepting foreign contributions and said it had the burden of proving it did not.

–Said Mitt Romney, in effect, killed a lady who lost her insurance.

–Say the “wealthy” aren’t paying their fair share.

–Stepped on the conscience protections of people of faith and attacked a Lutheran school’s right to hire and fire on religious grounds.

–Use “gay rights” as a wedge issue and depict opponents of same-sex marriage as bigots.

–Manufactured a phony GOP “War on Women.”

–Say Republicans want dirty air and dirty water and rejoice when people lose their insurance coverage, that they want a smaller America and don’t believe in rebuilding roads and bridges, that they are hostage takers and Slurpee sippers. He says they created this mess, and they should sit in the backseat of the car. We’ll have hand-to-hand combat with them on Capitol Hill, and if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun.

–Crammed Obamacare down the throats of a strongly opposed majority.

–Continue to scare seniors, the “middle class” and the “poor” into believing Republicans want to destroy Medicare.

–Publicly ridiculed and demonized the Supreme Court on multiple occasions.

–Disparaged hedge fund managers as “playing with other people’s money.”

–Vilified immigration enforcement advocates as racists.

–Waged a war against states on immigration and voter ID laws.

–Worked against military ballots.

–Lawlessly rewrote loans in the GM and Chrysler restructurings to favor unions and cheat secured creditors; and in Solyndra, to subordinate taxpayers to private investors.

–Exploited race and minority relations for political purposes and for ideological reasons, including Eric Holder calling the nation cowards on race, racializing voter intimidation laws and saying the GOP was after him on Fast and Furious because he, like Obama, is an African American; appealing to Hispanics and blacks to vote as a bloc for Democrats because Democrats are their friends and Republicans their enemies; and accusing the GOP of supporting voter ID laws to suppress the minority vote and immigration laws for racial reasons.

And there’s more.  Read David Limbaugh’s piece. (@DavidLimbaugh on Twitter)

 

Follow Joel Johannesen on Twitter  –  @JoelJohannesen

“They gonna put you y’all back in chains” — the ever eloquent Obama’s VP Biden

But don’t worry, it’s not a “gaffe.” That word is reserved for the other side.

Can you just imagine if, instead of the gaffe and idiocy-prone imp Joe Biden saying this,  it was Paul Ryan, GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s VP pick, saying this about Barack Obama? Can you just imagine the clarion call from the ever so civil Left and all of its sycophantic media division for Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s very public apology and, notwithstanding that, the media’s subsequent ongoing slaughtering of them anyway?

Sure you can! We all can! Yes we can!

When asked about it in another fluffy media interview, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter says the campaign has “no problem” with Vice President Joe Biden’s comment about putting people back in chains. But first, Cutter tried to “put it in context.” See, suddenly “context” matters to them. So since suddenly, in trying to explain and defend those words, context matters, let’s talk about the context. The context doesn’t matter! Because if Paul Ryan had said this instead of Joe Biden, context once again simply wouldn’t matter! But thanks for playing!

This comes on the same day I received one of my four-or-five-times-daily desperate emails from barackobama.com  –  this one asking, in very eloquent and civil and respectful “unity” and “post-partisan,” “respectful,” and new-style” and “post-modern” and “intelligent” Obama-style language:  “You might be wondering why the hell Romney picked this guy.”

Of course, “this guy” is the very respectable Congressman Paul Ryan, uh, “the hell.”

And it doesn’t take eagle eyes to see where the rest of that emailed missive was going: more lies. Clearly they’ve decided to stick with an outright lie about Romney/Ryan planning to “dismantle Medicare,” which I can tell is a lie inasmuch as the truth is exactly the opposite, and they know it.

This Obama regime is the most deceptive, dishonest, vulgar, divisive regime I’ve ever known. The People need to put Obama and thems’all back in chains. Oh sorry  –  was that “homophobic?”