Don't make Canadians mad, Bambi, you won't like what happens, eh ...
Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.
All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
She is dumb as a box of rocks.
Just what does that mean, exactly?
Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada's border to Mexico's, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/22/2009 13:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hey...at least she filed her taxes. That counts for something.
#2
I'd have said dumber than a bucket of hair, she's got rocks in her head.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/22/2009 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
She was governor of Arizona, a border state. She knows enough about it. The reason she sounds so stupid is that she's attempting to defend an indefensible position. I don't believe she's stupid. I believe she is corrupt as hell.
#4
I thank you for the correction, Ebbang, you're absolutely right.
There's a slogan: "I'm not stupid, I'm just corrupt!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/22/2009 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Greta Van Susteren did a show last night showing weapons the ATF have intercepted from a storage shed in Yuma. 50 cal belts and Special Ops rifles used by the US military plus quite a few others with the serial numbers filed off. It was a huge amount of weaponry from only 2 seizures. This has been going on for sometime with tacit approval--she's corrupt, all right.
Has anyone ever seen Saddams old spokesman, Baghdad Bob, and Bob Gibbs, PBOs press secretary, in the same room? When it comes to denying reality, they are cut from the same cloth. And there was that story today about the doctor claiming to have cloned people . . .
Really, is there anything Gibbs wont say on behalf of his boss? Ive put together for your delectation a video montage of the latest example of Gibbs truth-defying act. Its a step-by-step demonstration of how Gibbs yesterday denied the undeniable: that Pres. Obama changed positions when it comes to the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration members involved in authorizing the use of interrogation techniques now deemed verboten.
The clip consists of:
1. Rahm Emanuel on Sunday telling George Stephanopoulous that the officials who devised the interrogation policies should not be prosecuted either.
2. Gibbs himself, asked on Monday why the Bush administration lawyers who wrote memos supporting the legality of the interrogation techniques should not be prosecuted, saying they wouldnt because the president is focused on looking forward. Thats why.
3. PBO signaling the shift yesterday, saying that with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General, within the parameters of various laws, and I dont want to pre-judge that.
4. And finally, Gibbs back at the White House podium yesterday after PBO spoke, managing to keep a straight face in this exchange with Chip Reid of CBS.
CHIP REID: Are you suggesting, are you saying, that there was absolutely no change in policy today?
ROBERT GIBBS: Uh, I, I would, uh, uh, again I would point you to what the president said.
REID: Did he change his policy today?
GIBBS: I dont think so.
Over at Contentions, Jennifer Rubin has described Gibbs, when it comes his evasions, insults and ad hominem attacks, as being in a league of his own among press secretaries. Too true, at least when it comes to the American League. But well always have Bagh
#1
Didn't Big Zero tell America that CHANGE is what he is all about?
Must be hard to be the White House Press Secretary for a Left Wing Extremist Regime that is so far to the left that they think anyone who pays taxes, believes in the US Constitution and serves in the defence of the United States are nothing but Right Wing Extremist teabaggers.
Janeane Garafolo says the tea parties were a gathering of racists.
Strange, that these racists would welcome a black man to speak at their racist gathering at the state capital.
I wasn't expecting to speak, I just went up to get some footage for PJTV, but the organizer of the Tea Party found out I was there, and requested I come up and say a few words. How racist!!!
If you're a right winger and are tired of the media painting you as racist, spread this vid and watch the left downplay it and expose themselves even more as the true racists!
#1
Good for him ... and as for Janeane, that tattooed skank has just Dixie Chicked whatever is left of her sorry career, with that ignorant and insulting rant.
Doesn't make any difference. Just as the Dalai Lama said of terrorist and why pacifism doesn't work with them, their minds are closed. Above all else they desire power.
I found this well worth the read. A wee taste...
Barack Obama was always going to disappoint. When you promise almost everything to almost everybody--I'll stop the fighting in Iraq but I'll also keep going after al Qaeda there; I'll make the economy grow more but I'll spread the wealth around, and so on--you will inevitably let many people down. Human beings, even those who read fluently from teleprompters, simply cannot walk on water.
A president with historic ambitions was never going to be content with tackling a mere recession. Thus in his televised address before both houses of congress in February he delivered a special history lesson: "Our economy did not fall into decline overnight. Nor did all our problems begin when the housing market collapsed or the stock market sank." The current recession and housing and financial problems have deeper causes, he said. What are these underlying maladies that so badly need the shaman's touch? The president named four: energy, healthcare, education and debt. The "day of reckoning" for ignoring these issues--and for exacerbating this failure with excessive borrowing--has arrived, he said.
Americans who concentrated on the president's words rather than on their characteristically sonorous delivery found the diagnosis baffling. Education, energy and healthcare policy in the US, as almost anywhere, all need help. But are America's flaws in these areas really the causes of the housing bust and the paralysed banking system? What about the cyclical contractions that follow all economic booms? What about a decade and more of absurdly cheap money? How about all that Fannie and Freddie-fuelled lending to inappropriate borrowers? What happened to lax oversight? What about greed, that comforting straw man? No, according to Obama, we are losing our jobs and being kicked out of our excessively mortgaged houses because America lacks universal healthcare, federally sponsored nursery school, university for all, and a progressive emissions-oriented energy policy.
#1
Any extra-terrestrial visiting Earth would be dumbfounded that a populace as economically illiterate as that of the US (on macro and big-picture matters) could be so fabulously productive and successful. The author (who's good) is far too kind here. Obviously Bambi's diagnosis was a preposterous non-sequitir.
As I've said before, Bambi's ascent and his performance are a profound embarrassment for the country. That no mortification or shame are evident (within the NPR-listening "high mis-information voter" demo) is terrifying.
#3
......we are losing our jobs and being kicked out of our excessively mortgaged houses because America lacks universal healthcare, federally sponsored nursery school, university for all, and a progressive emissions-oriented energy policy.
Community organizer pimp-spin, nothing more. That's all he's done. That's all he knows.
#4
For the moment, though, the presidents real threat is from within his own increasingly restive party.
As soon as Obamas new car smell starts to reek like White Castle boxes and Newport butts watch for the vulnerable Dems to jump like rats on a sinking ship.
Remember folks:
In 1977 the approval ratings, after the First 100 days, for Jimmy Carter were 63% favorable with 18% unfavorable.
In 2001 the approval ratings, after the First 100 days, for George W. Bush were 62% favorable with 29% unfavorable.
#5
I blame reality shows. The american public is brainwashed into believing the best person is the one they like the most and the one they should like is the one with the best manufactured image. Frankly, I'd rather have Susan Boyle for President
#6
Frankly, I'd rather have Susan Boyle for President.
Reminds me of Bill Buckley's comment that he'd rather be governed by the first 100 hundred names in the phone book than by the entire faculty of Harvard University.
The uproar is understandable but should it really come as a surprise that Sufi Mohammad and his band of barbarians are opposed to all that we hold dear? Of course not.
The position held by people who kill those who dont subscribe to their point of view is diametrically opposed to that of all right-thinking persons. From day one, the stance of these militants who murder in the name of religion has been all too clear. These people are savages, yet we dont put them behind bars. Why? If we dont have the wherewithal to take them on, we should admit as much and stop making ludicrous claims that the enemy will be defeated in due course. Striking deals with an enemy that is simply buying time wont help either. Talibanisation is not just a threat, it is the reality today. Face it.
Sufi Mohammads organisation, which is sympathetic to the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, is interested less in matters of faith and more so in power in Pakistan. It is now clear that the Taliban will not stop until they have their way. And this is their prescription for Pakistan: a nation, armed with nuclear weapons, jerked back to a mediaeval age. A country where men without beards are flogged, and women killed if they choose to express themselves. That is where we are headed. And one is wrong if one thinks this cant happen in Pakistan. It can and it will unless we strike a decisive blow for the silent majority.
We must resist this onslaught. Should we be surprised when Sufi Mohammad says that that the high courts and the Supreme Court are un-Islamic? Certainly not. Are we to register shock when he says that democracy is un-Islamic? Of course not. He is merely articulating what he and his followers have thought from day one. Sufi Mohammads Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi, the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda are all committed to overthrowing the State of Pakistan. How many times do we have to say this? Their interest is not limited to enforcing at gunpoint Sharia law in Swat and the rest of Malakand. They want to take over all of Pakistan and subject each and every citizen to their brand of justice.
This government is ceding them territory and emboldening them to an extent where they will be able to dictate terms without fear. Fazlur Rehman of the JUI may say that Sufi Mohammad, a terrorist Mr Rehman supports despite being a member of parliament, speaks for himself. No, you are wrong Mr Rehman. He speaks for thousands of extremists who have no respect for the law. He is renouncing the constitution, which is perhaps tantamount to treason. We didnt vote for this on Feb 18, 2008. We didnt vote for barbarity in the garb of religiosity.
...I am so sick and tired of RACE. Period. When are we going to get over it? For Real folks. As someone who was an African American studies minor in college, pledged the oldest and most prestigious black women's sorority, was once a loyal card carrying member of the NAACP ( I did not renew my membership after the 2000 election campaign ads that ran against then Gov. George Bush paid for by the NAACP), started a very successful national organization for professional women of color, and I could go and on I am sick of the tearing apart of one set of Americans by their own fellow countrymen.
Yes, I am defending my mostly white (some Tea Party goers were black, Hispanic, etc.) Tea Party attending brethren because enough is enough. On last Thursday's "Countdown," MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and his guest Janeane Garofalo defamed fellow citizens who attended the prior day's Tea Parties with vitriolic contempt. Ms. Garofalo actually called Party-goers "a bunch of teabagging rednecks," adding "this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up."
She is wrong and she knows nothing about true racism-having never spent a day of her life being black in America. I do know something about racism as I and millions of other people of color have endured and experienced its ugly insidiousness. It is not a word that should be thrown around lightly or recklessly. If we dare not stand in defense of our fellow citizens right to protest peacefully against our/their government then we are giving into a sneaky form of Tyranny. Race has nothing to do with the hardworking, decent American citizens who simply got sick and tired of being overtaxed and outspent by their government and showed up to do something about it.
That is our solemn duties as Americans. This freedom is what makes us the envy of the world.... A pleasant surprise in the comments thread: while some of the HuffPo regulars are dutifully repeating the "Tea parties are racist" meme, an encouraging number are siding with Ms. Nelson and saying things like this:
Well said, Ms Nelson. I attended a tea party rally with co-workers, two of whom are black and one latino. They were stunned to hear that Garafolo belittled them, too, saying that they suffered from Stockholm syndrome. Thank you for stating what should be obvious to any rational person, that being in favor of limited government does not equal racism, and that attacking protestors as racists is either disingenuous, or moronic.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/22/2009 08:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've been snorkling around in some of the discussion threads about Tea Parties as well - and I have noticed the same thing - that the commenters giving out with the 'reactionary RethugliKKKan racist' line are being handed fairly vigorous arguments. It's a promising development, to my way of thinking.
#3
IThe left has succeeded in elevating racism as the ultimate evil that has to be attacked so vigorously that even an accusation is to be regarded as proof, and no further inquiry or questioning of the accusation is to be tolerated. When an accusation has been elevated to proof, then it attains the potential to be abused. The left called this McCarthyism, but flatters itself in thinking it is so pure, so righteous, so IMMACULATE, that it is somehow incapable and impossible for IT to construct a neo-McCarthyite tool of oppression itself and use it against those opposing its agenda.
It is time to treat calls like Garofolo's for what they are intended to be: a demand that her enemies be LYNCHED. Calls for lawless violence must be treated like-for-like. Examination of lead-ups to Genocides all over the world reveal that they were all preceeded by veiled calls for lawless violence that were not halted or disciplined. Liberals voice a fear of "spirals of violence" only when they start it and someone responds. If they fear such 'spirals' then they SHOULDN'T START THEM!
If these "journalists" pride themselves in the "influence" that they have, then they should take responsiblity for those who use it to incite violence.
#5
I've heard her shit before and it's all about appeasing her left-wing victem mentality 'COOL' circle of artsy friends.
I consider her more a racist for inciting mistrust and fear. She's polorizing the issue when it's about the finances and high taxes and bailouts!
The funny thing is, she should be protesting. Usually high taxes are normally a liberal's tool for social programs but in this case it's all going to wall street and banks.
I wouldn't waste too much brainpower on her noise.
#6
Besoeker, the lady's on our side; the side of lower taxes and less government intrusion in people's lives, the side of judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. She's an ally. A convert. I, for one, am happy to welcome her (and others like her) aboard.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/22/2009 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"She" who, Kofi? There are 2 in this sotry.
If you're talking about Grab-a-fellow, I agree.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/22/2009 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
garofolo bores me. typical self loathing pseudo-intellectual w/extreme tinges of NPD in her make up. A chick that was obviously invisible to men & cheerleaders in h.s. and has daddy issues to boot. One of my more callous jarhead buddies would say she just needs a clean pounding to get back to good.
#9
that the commenters giving out with the 'reactionary RethugliKKKan racist' line are being handed fairly vigorous arguments. It's a promising development
Means there's a much larger sense of irony on the left side of the political spectrum than previously thought.
A very long but interesting piece on the strangulation of the third (current) American republic, the 'Special Interest State', and why. Worth the read.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/22/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
IMO, his optimisim is based on forgeting that USA does not exists in vacuum. (i) It shares this planet with other countries who'd like to take it down in order to become numero uno. (ii) There is Islam = 1.3 billion people who can never be happy except when they're Jihading.
#2
His analysis isn't completely original, but this is the best expression of the theory in easy-to-understand language I've ever seen.
I don't think he's excessively optimistic. He expresses his ideas as something he desires but cannot know for sure. Agreed about points i and ii, Gromgoru, but has it not always been so?
There have always been other nations inimical to the U.S. since its founding. If you're saying that technology, particularly of warfare, has changed sufficiently that those threats are more immediate now, you may have a point, but those technological changes work in both directions.
I think this guy's right about the current tired state of big-government, special interest America, and the wheels coming off that incarnation of the Republic. IMO, the area where he MAY be missing the point is his presumption of a change for the better. I'd like to think that what remains of our culture would produce that, but there is also the possibility that we could get something evil.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/22/2009 5:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Like the primacy of federal over state sovereignty, the shift continued even after the watershed event. Remaining limits on governmental authority were eliminated by the dialectic of the civil rights revolution, in which the federal power over commerce was expanded to meet moral imperatives, and the new standards were then fed back into regulation of commerce.
Delong missed a key intersection regarding Federal primacy. Federal "primacy over state sovereignty" took root following the secession of states leading up to the incident at Fort Sumter in the spring of 1861, and Lincoln's failure to recognize the Confederate States and subsequent delcaration of an insurrection.
#5
I think he is too optimistic, and my objection centers on his statement: "One can safely predict that the ultimate result will be a democratic republic, because that is American culture." If by "democratic" he means a government with elections, he may well be correct; but if he means a government that respects liberty and the will of the people, I suspect he is wrong. I think the culture has changed under us, and I think we face big problems when the money well runs dry.
Posted by: James ||
04/22/2009 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Point taken, Gromgoru.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/22/2009 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
