Feb
04
2016
5

Obama: “I want a $10/barrel oil fe…” Congress (interrupting): “No.”

Seriously, why did CNBC even bother reporting this, let alone make it a ‘BREAKING’ story? “President Barack Obama will propose a $10 per barrel charge on oil to fund clean transportation projects as part of his final budget request next week, the White House said Thursday.”  I’m sure that Obama would like a pony, too.  Heck, THAT Congress might give him. Shoot, I’d sign off on giving the President a whole horse show if he’d just play with it until his term is up and left policy to people who understand the basic concept…

Jan
07
2016
3

Don’t forget! CNN’s and Barack Obama’s ersatz town hall on guns is on tonight!

I mention this not because I plan to watch it, because I won’t; nor because I expect any of you plan to watch it, because I doubt that many of you will. I mention it because maybe some day somebody might actually try to ding CNN for making this kind of in-kind contribution to the Democratic party. Every little bit of a proper evidence trail helps.

Dec
15
2015
--

My RedState post on Obama’s Hawaiian vacation is up.

Found here. Short version… I’m in a rotten mood today. So I appreciate Barack Obama wasting my money sufficiently egregiously that I felt justified in yelling at him for it.

Dec
06
2015
2

Yeah, I’m gonna be live-tweeting the speech, apparently.

I don’t really know why; oh, wait, I do. I fully expect President Barack Obama to tell the world tonight that he’s actually a king, and that the Constitution is a mere scrap of parchment.  Well.  He’ll try.  God knows that Obama’s screwed up everything else he’s put his hand to*.

Moe Lane

*His crew got him elected.  His crew always got him elected.

Nov
18
2015
2

My RedState post on Ted Cruz calling out Barack Obama is up.

Found here. Short version: Ted Cruz invited Barack Obama to come back to the United States and repeat his insults to Ted’s face over the subject of Syrian refugees.  Obama will not, because he’s a: not brave enough and b: wrong anyway.

Simple as that.

Nov
17
2015
1

Why Barack Obama offered up some weaksauce support for free speech.

(H/T: Instapundit) I decline to follow this suggestion: “Give President Obama some credit — when he was asked to comment on the wave of protests sweeping colleges across the country, he didn’t fully capitulate.”  And I have three reasons for doing so: (more…)

Nov
14
2015
1

Politico suggests Barack Obama take a little responsibility for ISIS!

Yes, I’m as shocked as you are: “Coming just a day after President Barack Obama’s comment that the Islamic State had been “contained,” the terrorist attacks in Paris have cast doubt on the administration’s strategy and efforts to show gains against the jihadist group, which claimed credit for the carnage.” As a buddy of mine, usually Politico couches criticism of the President in terms of something “leading Republicans to cast doubt on Obama’s strategy.”  Having Politico admit that, yeah, this is a legitimate policy of the President’s that he needs to address now is a pretty big deal.

Mind you, Politico goes on to complain about the Republicans, and to suggest that we’re complaining for the sake of complaining. But that’s in the latter part of the article. The part that everybody reads was all about what Barack Obama needs to make an answer for. I’d be amazed, if I wasn’t aware that the man isn’t running for President again.

Nov
08
2015
1

My RedState piece on Democrats and Obama is up.

Found here. Short version: Barack Obama ain’t nobody special. At least, that’s what Democrats are now admitting.

Nov
05
2015
2

Tweet of the Day, It Truly IS The Tweet Of The Day For Many People edition.

There’s just something about it.

Oct
31
2015
1

The New York Times vs. The New York Times on Presidential Prerogatives.

This story via the New York Times is… this is one of those times when you have to take the long view, perhaps. “The White House will try to block the release of a handful of emails between President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, citing longstanding precedent invoked by presidents of both parties to keep presidential communications confidential, officials said Friday.”  See, the problem here is that the White House has a point: Presidents from both parties have indeed long taken the position (I think, fairly) that they should be able to get unvarnished opinions from their advisers without having to worry about whether it’d be used for partisan purposes.  After all, as the New York Times goes on to note:

President Bush has said that Karl Rove, his closest adviser, and Harriet Miers, his former White House counsel, among others, do not have to comply with Congressional subpoenas because “the president relies upon his staff to give him candid advice.”

This may well end up in a constitutional showdown. If it does, there is no question about which side should prevail. Congress has a right, and an obligation, to examine all of the evidence, which increasingly suggests that the Bush administration fired eight or more federal prosecutors either because they were investigating Republicans, or refusing to bring baseless charges against Democrats. The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Watergate tapes case, and other legal and historical precedents, make it clear that executive privilege should not keep Congress from getting the testimony it needs.

…Oops.  Sorry, that was what the New York Times argued in an ‘editorial’ in 2007.  My bad.  This is what the NYT says now: (more…)

Oct
30
2015
7

Welcome to Barack Obama’s Syrian War.

Ah, sorry: ‘conflict.’ That’s what we call wars when we don’t want to call them wars. It’s sort of a tradition, for Democrats: see Korea, Vietnam, and Serbia. At any rate: …and so it begins.

The White House will announce Friday that a small number of U.S. special operations forces will be sent into Syria, according to a senior U.S. official.

The senior U.S. official said that the forces will be stationed in northern Syria and work alongside groups with a proven track record of fighting ISIS. The move will be described as a “shift” but not a “change” in U.S. strategy against ISIS, the official added.

(more…)

Oct
15
2015
1

Antiwar Left apparently upset about the very drone program they forced into existence.

First, let’s set the scene.

The U.S. is killing far more people than intended in some drone strikes, according to a report likely to raise new questions about the Obama administration’s reliance on drones in its battle against Islamic terrorists.

The Intercept, in a wide-ranging set of articles on the U.S. drone program, reported that in one five month-period, nearly 90 percent of people killed by strikes in an operation in northeastern Afghanistan were not the intended targets. The news outlet reports documents detailing Operation Haymaker show that the campaign, that lasted between January 2012 and February 2013, killed more than 200 people, but only 35 were the intended targets[*].

(more…)

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com