Liz Cheney has an Op-ed in today's WSJ. It's juicy red meat that also is a devastating take down of the fool 52% of the people voted for.

She starts with Obama's fanciful tale of the ending of the Cold War during his speech in Moscow and then gets going.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

...Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Read the whole thing.

BTW- She said today she's open to running for office.

Consider me firmly ensconced on the bandwagon.

Posted by: DrewM at 09:08 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Ouch, this has got to hurt.

The democrats are losing Social Security, the Economy, and Government Ethics.

Savor that for a moment - the democrats have LOST the social security issue to the republicans. By 5 points!

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 08:17 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

A bit of house keeping. I blogged a few times about NY Republicans in the state Senate wresting control of that house through the defection of two Democrats. One returned the next day leading to a month of chaos while the Senate was deadlocked 31-31.

Late last week the second Democrat re-defected giving the control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Pretty much aside from some new titles for a bunch of folks (and of course, some raises!), everything is back where it started.

That was fun. At least now New York can go back to laughing at California.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:50 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

Last week Democrats and the media (BIRM) wet their collective pants over a super-secret and scary program that CIA Director Leon Panetta canceled the second he found about it.

What could cause Panetta such fear and anger? Well, it seems the previous administration considered ways to, I hope you are sitting down when you read this, kill or capture members of al Qaeda!

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

Awesome, almost 8 years after 9/11 and the CIA is still working on this idea and haven't developed a plan for this? Are they backed up doing threat assessments on the Warsaw Pact or something?

And don't you feel safer knowing the Director of CIA immediately upon finding out that the CIA might actually come up with a way to kill or capture top al Qaeda leaders canned the effort? What happened to getting bin Laden as Job One?

Now congressional Democrats are in an uproar because they weren't told about the program. Except they were told and there really wasn't a program anyway.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added.

Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said little had been spent on the efforts -- closer to $1 million than $50 million. "The idea for this kind of program was tossed around in fits and starts," he said.

Here's the odd thing, according to the article Bush and Cheney opposed the idea of issuing a 'kill on sight' order against certain al Qaeda leaders (though they did authorize it if captured proved too difficult or dangerous). Given our use of CIA owned and operated Predator drones that everyone knows about, what exactly is the big deal here?

This seems like nothing more than a minor skirmish in the ongoing war between CIA and people like Nancy Pelosi. The thing is by over playing this, it seems like Panetta is taking Pelosi's side.

CIA spend a lot of time and energy warring with the Bush administration. Now it looks like they are going to be fighting it out with the Democrats and their own director.

Good think we aren't at war or facing a terrorist threat or anything so we have time for this crap.

Breaking: Dick Durbin doesn't know his massive ass from his elbow. A reminder, Durbin is the number 2 man in the Senate behind Harry Reid.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:34 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 566 words, total size 3 kb.

The President demonstrated his bias in favor of oppressors, as long as they are the "right sort", again last week in Ghana. Ghana is not an Arab nation so the President had no problem slamming the African nations for corruption and abuse. Check out Anne Bayefsky in Forbes:

Speaking in Ghana on Saturday President Obama lectured Africans on local repression, corruption, brutality, good governance and accountability. The startling contrast to his June speech in Cairo was revealing. Stroking Muslim and Arab nations has become the hallmark of Obama's foreign policy.

In Egypt, he chose not to utter the words "terrorism" or "genocide." In Egypt, there was nothing "brutal" he could conjure up, no "corruption" and no "repression".

In Ghana, with a 70% Christian population, he mentioned "good governance" seven times and added direct calls upon his audience to "make change from the bottom up." He praised "people taking control of their destiny" and pressed "young people" to "hold your leaders accountable."

He made no such calls for action by the people of Arab states--despite the fact that not a single Arab country is "free," according to the latest Freedom House global survey.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the President is condemning corruption and repression. I just wish he'd actually say something about it where he allegedly has the most credibility of any recent President: the Arab world. I was incensed when he glossed over the repression and abuse of women and gays in his Cairo speech because if anyone is the right man for that job, Obama is.

But we see the same thing from him time and time again. He supports oppressors, abusers, and dictators. He refuses to call them out and instead blathers about working together. Then he condemns U.S. allies and shames our country's biggest supporters.

Read the whole thing, she really goes nuclear toward the end.

Thanks to Eddie C.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:38 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Senate Judiciary will begin hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor today. No fireworks expected, though; the senators and the nominee will just be giving their opening statements. The questioning of Judge Sotomayor starts tomorrow. The Chairman goes first, followed by the ranking Republican, and then alternating down the line until we get to the clowns on the Democratic side, Arlen Specter and Al Franken. Later in the week, witnesses will testify, including two of the successful plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's most recent race case, Ricci v. DeStefano.

Each day, Judge Sotomayor will telegenically hobble in on her broken ankle and say as little of substance as possible. When it's their turn, the Democrats will throw softball questions and give her plenty of opportunity to discuss her roots in the Bronx. On the other side, the Republicans will try and confront her without messing up their reelection efforts by providing soundbites of harsh treatment to an injured woman. Don't underestimate how terrified the Republicans on Senate Judiciary are of looking bad on TV in front of women and Hispanic voters.

Despite the wealth of disqualifying information on Judge Sotomayor, the hearings are a mere formality, which is why I call her "Justice Sotomayor" in the headline. The Republicans are just plain bad at this kind of thing. At first their strategy, led by Senator John Cornyn while ranking Republican Jeff Sessions lies low after Democrats resurrected the age-old accusations of "racially insensitive comments" which scuttled his chance at a judgeship in 1986, was to roll over and put up only token resistance.

Even before her nomination, the Right side of the blogosphere had video of Sotomayor's claim that "the courts are where policy is made." After bloggers uncovered Sotomayor's decades-long history of race- and gender-biased statements, Cornyn perked up a little bit, but then decided he couldn't win any votes in one-third-Hispanic Texas by going after her for them.

The Republicans on Senate Judiciary have shown more interest in standing up to the President as more details have been uncovered, including Sotomayor's membership in a woman-only club in violation of the ABA Code of Judicial Conduct and her and fellow judges' conspiracy to bury an important civil rights case that threatened to undo her policy preference for racial quotas. Then it was discovered that she was adviser to a Puerto Rican advocacy group that labeled Judge Bork a threat to Puerto Ricans during his ultimately unsuccessful confirmation hearings. She was also associated with ACORN.

Well, now Judge Sotomayor has the Republicans' complete attention. The only problem is they lost their chance. If they wanted to derail this nomination--or even merely give the President a black eye if their ambitions were so low--they had to start in the first few weeks. If it wasn't done then, it wasn't going to happen. But they wavered and fretted and wrung their hands and and tried to distance themselves from people actually interested in stopping this nomination and it's too late now. It appears they expect the decision to be made based on events at the hearings, something so stupid I'm going to emphasize that it only appears this way. This is theater. Unless Sotomayor has a meltdown this week, this thing is done and the senators on the Judiciary Committee know it.

It's frustrating because Democrats would never have wasted such an opportunity. When I write that Sotomayor's extensive history of race- and gender-bias should disqualify her for a seat on the Supreme Court that's not hyperbole. I mean it. She should not be a judge because she believes that some individuals are better than others by virtue of membership in certain identity groups. She should not be a judge because she tried to hide a case involving important constitutional and statutory questions from her fellow appellate judges. Such a small-minded and intellectually dishonest person should not be elevated to the highest Court. If only the Republicans on Senate Judiciary agreed.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:20 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 668 words, total size 4 kb.

So, did I miss any big news while I was away?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:04 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Unfortunately Genghis is under the weather again tonight so I'm filling in for him. We've warned him before about the sickly hobos but he seems to have gotten a taste for their sweet, sweet, gamy flesh. So what can ya do?
Anyway here are a few items for your enjoyment:

Item #1: The Great Tennessee Marijuana Cave
I know this is old, but it's so awesome that it's worth looking at again. I have a certain respect for criminals who go all out in their crime commitment. Of course this could all could just be a misunderstanding over private hemp use. And who couldn't use an escape hatch from their house?

Item #2: Our Secret Fantasies About Annoying Prius Owners
Can't live with 'em, can't gut and skim 'em...until now.

Tonight's post brought to you by men with intelligent faces (and 1969 Dodge Chargers):

Weekly commenter results are under the fold. more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:02 PM | Comments (8)
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Would you say this is unprecedented? Would you say it if I said "please"?

How about if I gave you a hundred bucks?

Don't play me like that. You know this was unprecedented, dude. Stop being a dick and just say it.

You can lie to me, but don't lie to yourself.

Two words: Un. Precedented.

Dick.

Thanks to momma.

Posted by: Ace at 01:37 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

See-Dub sends this link to a free web "Fancast" of the movie, which I see from the reviews on Netflix is pretty good. One fan exults "Out-Peckinpahs Peckinpah," which seems like hyperbole, but that has me interested.

In case you don't know, John Milius is the radical libertarian/conservative/masculinist who directed Conan, wrote and directed Red Dawn, and co-wrote, if my memory serves, Apocalypse Now, I think in collaboration at some point with George Lucas. (Lucas was fired from the project when he insisted that Col. Kurtz be portrayed as a giant humanoid badger with a Yiddish accent. Also, he wanted Dennis Hopper's character to be Jar-Jar.)

I'm either guessing or remembering he had something to do with Scarface, too. (Edit: Nope. I think I confused Oliver Stone for him. Oliver Stone co-wrote the screenplay for Conan. But Milius did write Magnum Force and Quint's Indianapolis speech from Jaws. (!) Much cooler than Scarface, IMHO.

Maybe we can do a "movie club" type discussion on it tomorrow or somethin'.
Hmm: Make it Wednesday, I think.

Posted by: Ace at 01:07 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.