Does Obama have other children? Well, none to speak of

President Obama’s got sons? - In the Loop - The Washington Post:
What do you make of this, asks the Post:

President Obama, speaking last night in Chicago at a fundraiser at a private home, unloaded this bombshell:

Obama, according to the White House transcript, talked about “The first bill I signed — a bill that said that we’re going to have equal pay for equal work because I want my daughters treated the same way as my sons.”

Sons? What sons? How many? Where? Names? Do the girls know? (More importantly, does Michelle?)

Obama has sons? Who knew?

Reminds me of the old joke of a man boasting about his two kids with his wife standing nearby. He's asked whether he has any other kids. Flustered for a moment, he turns red in the face and leans to his interlocutor and replies, "Well, none to speak of."

How Solyndra would have worked, if it had worked

As you recall, Solyndra was a "green energy," Obama-led boondoggle that put the taxpayers in hock for more than $550 billion dollars. The company folded because it had no business plan worth the name, relied heavily (well, almost totally) on federal subsidies to begin with and, most importantly, did not have a marketable product (thin-film solar cells). That the failed companies were managed by Obama cronies - and they made millions no matter that the company flopped - is not beside the point. It is the point.

But let us suppose as a thought experiment that Solyndra had actually produced a useful product. How would it have gained a revenue stream? There is a real-world answer and it is provided by examining another famous government project, Goverment General Motors and its abortive attempt to produce a commercially viable hybrid auto, the Chevy Volt.

Commercial flop = government success

The Chevy Volt flops—Patrick Michaels - NYPOST.com:

By most accounts, “Government Motors” has stuck with the Volt mainly to please the Obama administration, which still owns a third of its stock in the wake of the 2009 government “rescue” of the company. But just how badly is the effort faring? Well, consider the 1,529 sold in December.

More than a third of those were fleet sales to corporations. None of these were the traditional large-fleet purchasers, i.e. Hertz, Avis and the other big rental companies. They were more like Verizon and General Electric — with GE having committed to buying 12,000 and having already purchased unspecified “hundreds,” with continued “daily” deliveries, as The Wall Street Journal reported recently.

Then there are the direct taxpayer buys. Fifty to New York City. The city of Deland, Fla., brags about buying five with an Energy Department grant. The federal General Services Administration has bought 101 so far, but President Obama has ordered it to procure only hybrid or high-mileage vehicles by 2015. (The taxpayers buy about 60,000 cars a year for GSA.

This is a textbook example of crony capitalism:

A. General Electric, of course, is Obama's pet corporation because its head, Jeffrey Immelt, is Obama's croniest of crony capitalists. So no wonder GE has "committed" to buying 12,000 Volts. They won't of course, but they'll find another way to scratch the backs of the robber barons in Washington.

B. "Then there are the direct taxpayer buys." I am sure you saw that municipal governments get federal money to buy Volts. Understand what this means: the government owns a third of GM, which makes it a truly major shareholder if not the largest shareholder. The government takes money (taxes) from you and me and then gives it to, say, Deland, Fla., so it can buy cars from a company the government controls. And Obama has ordered the GSA basically to buy nothing else until the end of his presumptive second term.

"Why didn't I think of that?"

Well, Obama said he wanted to spread the wealth around. The Mafia could not do it better.

But the whole "green" car racket is a scam, a gigantic corporate-welfare machine.

See also, "Buy A Honda, Kill a Polar Bear."

And today, this: "Bankrupt Solyndra seeking to pay bonuses."

Now seems an unlikely time for handing out bonuses at bankrupt Solyndra LLC, but that’s the plan of company attorneys intending to dole out up to a half-million dollars to persuade key employees to stay put.

Nearly two dozen Solyndra employees could receive bonuses ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 each under a proposal filed by Solyndra’s attorneys in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

That means that you and I are paying those bonuses. The looting continues.

Related: "Detroit unsure over the future of green cars." "But the economics are not attractive yet for the average consumer." What?

The Left's only question: Who is to rule, that is all

The New Authoritarianism by Fred Siegel and Joel Kotkin - City Journal

Much of the administration’s approach has to do with a change in the nature of liberal politics. Today’s progressives cannot be viewed primarily as pragmatic Truman- or Clinton-style majoritarians. Rather, they resemble the medieval clerical class. Their goal is governmental control over everything from what sort of climate science is permissible to how we choose to live our lives. Many of today’s progressives can be as dogmatic in their beliefs as the most strident evangelical minister or mullah. Like Al Gore declaring the debate over climate change closed, despite the Climategate e-mails and widespread skepticism, the clerisy takes its beliefs as based on absolute truth. Critics lie beyond the pale.

"Progressives" have no absolute belief but in themselves. Their purpose is power. Political power is their bread and meat. It is their religion, their overriding quest. As I explained in, "The Po-Mo Deconstructed Presidency,"

One of the basic tenets of postmodernist linguistic deconstructionism (which I learned how to do in my postgraduate studies at Vanderbilt) is that all text is tainted by bias and that objective points of view are impossible. Hence, the objective of expression is to exercise power.

Hence, there is no such as thing as objective truth and statements are never more than propositional in nature. A statement's truth content is never more than opinion, and opinions are nothing but expressions of power. Therefore, in a basic sense, all speech is power directed.

This is a fundamental world view of the Left and is derived directly from Marxism, as reworked by Leninism. Since Marx held that his communist theory was literally scientific, his economic-historical forecasts were not simply likely, they were certain. To understand and partner with this inevitability was to be "on the right side of history" (which is where that overused cliche comes from). As formulated by Lenin et. al., truth is therefore not statements of objective facts, but assertions that move the communist revolution and its fulfillment closer to reality. "Truth" is therefore pliable and impermanent, the concept of truth being only practical. In practice, all of language became subservient to the dominance of the party, a fact recognized by George Orwell in his novel 1984 and its concept of Newspeak.

As Orwell put it in 1984, "We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."

Lewis Carroll understood this quite well in Through the looking Glass.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

And that is the only question the Left is interested in. This explains why George W. Bush's policies were bad when he was president, but are good when continued by Barack Obama. Statements about policies are not really about the policies, but about getting or keeping power. That's all.

Update: The SF Chronicle's Deb Saunders explains how this has worked in the last few weeks, another example of when the Republicans did something, it was bad, but when the Democrats do it, it's good.

So this is how the 99 percent lives

Obama’s vacation home in Hawaii - The Washington Post

So President Obama stands behind the Occupiers? How nice to know that our president comports with the unwashed 99 percent, especially in his choice of vacation getaways.

Why does Obama do the things he does?

Victor Davis Hanson on Barack Obama:

For Obama the great tragedy of a Solyndra was not the corruption of old-style fast-buck artists masking their greed through insider green lobbying with members of his administration, but rather that such scandals (along with Climategate and the implosion of Al Gore) have sidetracked the entire green philosophy that mandated more government unionized employees, government technocrats, and government tax collectors to reorder society itself.

The result of all this is a sort of unending but rarely expressed war. The business man does not know what his taxes are, only that they should go up, given his privilege. He is judged not by the good that he does but by the excessive money he makes. The corporation does not know what the rules of the game are, whether his energy is too polluting, his workers not unionized enough, or his product not regulated enough. None believe Obamacare, as promised, will reduce costs. None believe that government borrowing and massive new entitlements are reducing unemployment and raising GDP. None believe that wealth can be created by record deficits and aggregate debt. None believe that printing ever more money will not lead to inflation.

What we have, then, is a war on two ends: the better off are hesitant to work more, given their fears that additional profits will either be more difficult to come by or not remain their own; the poor are hesitant to work more, given their expectations that entitlements will be extended and will be easier to come by. They both expect more government and they both as a result are not so eager to take risks and seek greater income in the private sector.

The result of Obama’s war is the current three-year slowdown. Obama in response counts on two strategies to nevertheless be reelected: either at some point the private sector will conclude that it is not going to get any better, and thus it is preferable to shrug, take its medicine, and get back to work, and so the economy picks up a little in 2012; or, to the degree that Obama can blame the lengthy pause solely on the minority of the undeserving rich, he believes that an angry and fearful bare majority may agree.

The question is truly begged: If we stipulate that the effective destruction of America's economy is not an actual objective of a president whose political orientation is the most radically leftist of any figure to occupy the office (or most any office in Washington, for that matter), then: what would he be doing differently if that really was his objective? He would be doing hardly anything differently.

This administration is not so baffling perhaps, when viewed through this lens:



Bill Whittle explains in detail:

This what $5 Trillion has bought

Obama v. Clinton for "first black president" title

Which is the real "first black president?" Douglas Wilder ponders the question.

L. Douglas Wilder was governor of Virginia from 1990 to 1994. He was America's first elected African-American governor. On Politico he asks whether Obama is better for blacks (politically) than Clinton was. And Wilder doesn't think so.

I asked back in August, "Is Barack Obama a black president?"

I trust the reader will see that the question posed by this post's title is unrelated to President Obama's ancestry, but, rather, with his American ethnic identification.

That Obama is an African-American is not the question. The question is, Is Barack Obama a black American? And to this question, I think the answer is at best open.

Consider the president's biography. He has no ancestor who was part of the historic black experience in America. His mother was white and his father was Kenyan. What do I mean by the "black experience?" I'll let black Americans answer that.

And I quoted some prominent black Americans on what it meant to live the black experience in America. This is an experience that Obama never lived.

The black American "two-cultures" environment, which was (and still very much is) so central to their lives, was absent from Obama's upbringing. He lived in Hawaii from birth to high school graduation, where the racial friction has always been between Hawaii natives and whites rather than between whites and blacks. Second, he spent ages 6-10 in Indonesia. This is not the childhood the the black experience in America, in which blacks grow up in and spend adulthood in a black culture that "is heavily southern American," even for northern blacks.

The experience of being raised in a distinct black culture, surrounded by whites and significantly controlled by them, is to be immersed in a culture with its own historic baggage of slavery and subsequent racism and Jim Crow, a culture with its own music and coded jargon and Southern Gospel religious heritage. This is a culture that has never been part of Barack Obama's experience. It is literally alien to him.

Even in 2007, this disparity led Time Magazine to ask, "Is Obama Black Enough?"

And so Gov. Wilder now ponders,

Yet here we sit, more than three years after Obama’s win, and too many people are pulling me aside in private to ask why his standing in the African-American community has softened since his Inauguration. They also question whether the reduced excitement among young and new voters — with that lack of enthusiasm from African-Americans — might hinder Obama’s 2012 campaign. ...

Obama was elected in a flourish of promise that many in the African-American community believed would help not only to symbolize African-American progress since the Civil War and Civil Rights Acts but that his presidency would result in doors opening in the halls of power as had never been seen before by black America.

Has that happened? I am forced to say, “No” — especially when comparing Morrison’s metaphorical first black president to the actual first black president.

Obama was elected in a flourish of promise that many in the African-American community believed would help not only to symbolize African-American progress since the Civil War and Civil Rights Acts but that his presidency would result in doors opening in the halls of power as had never been seen before by black America.
Has that happened? I am forced to say, “No” — especially when comparing Morrison’s metaphorical first black president to the actual first black president.

Like I did in my post, Wilder cites Toni Morison's claim that Bill Clinton was America's "first black president." But Wilder, while understanding her point, does not embrace it. Nonetheless,

By birth and life experience, Clinton cannot lay claim to the title of first black president — as Morrison knighted him. But Obama needs to work harder to make it less obvious that Clinton, in governing deed, actually deserves it more that the 44th president does.

A lot of whites voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he would be the first black American president. But as Gov. Wilder implicitly acknowledges, he's not in any respect except skin tone, and this has done nothing to improve the lives of black Americans economically or politically. Will this make a difference in 2012? I think it will, and not only among whites.

President Nowhere

Does he even know who is looking back?

Works and Days » The President Who Never Was:

What are we left with in the end? Empty soaring rhetoric of the day, as the president without an identity desperately searches for one about every three months. In the old days the masks were a Bill Ayers for revolutionary fervor, or a Rev. Wright for black fides. Now they are dead presidents.

Where does this lead? Nowhere. ...

The next year will be nothing but more teenage petulance. The world has disappointed Barack Obama. Like any adolescent, he will keep reinventing himself, endlessly trying on new presidential masks and blasting “them” who were not so charmed. What else can a man without an identity do, a president who never really was?

Read the whole thing.

Did Romney fact flub attacking Obama?

The question has two answers, of course, one political and the other factual. GOP candidate Mitt Romney laid into President Obama for his prospective departure for Hawaii on Dec. 17 for a 17-day vacation. The vacation plans were splashed across The Drudge Report on Dec. 2. Here is a grab of the photo Drudge ran:

And the text accompanying:

THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE

Trip of the President

to

Honolulu, Hawaii

December 17th, 2011 to January 2nd, 2012

Trip Overview

On Saturday, December 17th, 2011, the President will travel to Honolulu, Hawaii. He will return to Washington, DC on Monday, January 2nd, 2012. ...

...no public events are scheduled during the trip. ...

This would seem to attribute the vacation information directly to the White House. That became the occasion for Romney's rip:

"I have to feel that this President has been a failure," the White House hopeful said during a tele-townhall Monday evening with potential Iowa voters.

"I just think it's time to have a President whose idea of being ‘hands on’ doesn't mean getting a better grip on the golf club," Romney zinged. ...

Obama, Romney argued, "told Congress that they need to stay in session and pass his tax breaks for the payroll tax and that they shouldn't leave for vacation until they did. And yet he's going off for 17 days and for golf in the sun."

But things are not always what they seem even on Drudge, according to ABC News.

Despite what Romney may be saying, a 17-day Hawaiian vacation for the Obama’s isn’t actually on the books. ...

Additionally, President Obama has said publicly that if Congress isn’t in recess by the Christmas holiday everyone — himself included — will be in Washington, D.C.

“We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen. Now is not the time to slam the brakes on the recovery… Right now it’s time to step on the gas. We need to get this done. And I expect that it’s going to get done before Congress leaves. Otherwise, Congress may not be leaving, and we can all spend Christmas here together,” said Obama.

Now, it needs be noted that the president and his family vacationed in Hawaii over Christmastime last year and, I am pretty sure, the year before that. So ABC News' insistence that such a vay-cay this year "isn’t actually on the books" seems somewhat overstated.

So did Romney flub it with his rip? Not politically. The Dems will howl and deride, but they'd do that no matter what Romney said. As for Romney's supporters and the Republican base generally, they will think that even if Obama is not flying off for 17 days in Hawaii while issues go unresolved, it's exactly the sort of thing he would do.

Michele Bachmann's ding-dong moment redux

Having already pointed out that Michele Bachman is a ding-dong, further evidence of her basic cluelessness is her commentary on the Iranian protesters government seizure of the English British embassy.

ABC News reports,

In light of the British Foreign Ministry pulling all U.K. nationals out of the British embassy in Tehran after students stormed the building in protest, GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann told a crowd in Waverly, Iowa, today that she would close the U.S. embassy in Iran.

One small, tiny note: The U.S. hasn’t had an embassy in Tehran since 1980. Following the Iranian Hostage Crisis, where 52 Americans were held for 444 days, the United States cut all diplomatic ties.

According to reports, Bachmann applauded the U.K.’s move, adding, “That’s exactly what I would do [if I were president]. We wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran. I wouldn’t allow that to be there.”

The campaign tried to backtrack today, but it ain't selling. You can bet, though, that this is being much more widely reported than President Obama condemning Tuesday the takeover of the "English embassy" in Iran. Well, just as there is no American embassy in the country, neither is there an English embassy there - or anywhere else in the world. The embassy is the British embassy, encompassing more than only England.

Christmas tree tax: About, face!

That Drudge man, he be powerful! When you get 100 million hits or so per month, you sway opinion whether you are trying to or not. Remmeber this morning's Christmas Tree Tax?

The administration has folded. Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets. ...

White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told ABC News that despite some media coverage, “I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama Administration is not taxing Christmas trees. What’s being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign, similar to how the dairy producers have created the ‘Got Milk?’ campaign.”

Nonetheless, the criticisms have apparently had an impact as the program is now being delayed.

“USDA is going to delay implementation and revisit this action,” Lehrich said.

If members of an industry group want to assess a 15-cent fee upon each item they sell, no problem. What I don't understand is why the federal government needs to be involved at all. Of course, that's a dumb question to ask when it concerns this administration.

Where is the ACLU when you need it?

Officially promoted by the Obama administration!

Heritage's blog, The Foundry: "Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax"

President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).

To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees

But wait! It's not actually a tax, you see:

Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government” (76 CFR 69102).

The 15 cents, you see, goes to a board, established by the SecAg, that promotes Christmas trees by "carrying out the program established by" the SecAg. No wonder OTB headlines it, "A Christmas Tree Tax? No, Just Good Old Crony Capitalism."

The problem here isn’t that the Federal Government is imposing a “tax” on Christmas trees, but that it’s doing so to finance a program that it shouldn’t be implementing to begin with. The reason that the Christmas Tree growers want a program like this is because natural trees have been steadily losing market share to artificial trees in recent years. ... It’s a choice consumers are making in increasing numbers apparently, and the natural tree industry obviously doesn’t like it.So, they decided to get the government involved in “promoting” natural Christmas trees. ...

Why, then, do we need a government program to promote their sale?

We don’t, of course, and in reality the government shouldn’t be involved in product promotion of any kind. That’s not their job, it’s the job of the industry itself. If tree growers want to create a promotional campaign, then they can do so through their trade association. This simply isn’t something that the government should be doing, especially for a product that is sold primarily in a domestic market. Instead of doing that, though, they lobbied the government to create a program to do it for them.

What we’ve got here, then, is another example of crony capitalism, with the government putting its finger on the scale to benefit the natural tree industry at the presumed expense of the artificial tree industry and, most likely, the taxpayers (that 15 cent a tree fee is unlikely to be enough to fund the program completely). That’s crony capitalism, folks.

This administration hardly originated crony capitalism but Obama et. al. have perfected it to a high art.

However, clearly this program is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment! As we all know, the government with its partner, the ACLU, has been waging a War on Christmas Trees.

Okay, snark off. Actually, there are all manner of industries that use the government to promote their businesses and this sort of fee is by far from uncommon - as even DefendChristmas.com reports, "Akin to similar programs that promote milk, beef and cotton, the new Christmas tree program will impose on U.S. domestic producers and importers an initial fee of 15 cents per tree." However, it is still accurate to describe the fee as a tax because it is remission of revenue to the federal government by force of law, spent for purposes that are spelled out in law and regulation, carried out by an executive department.

The ACLU's web site is not terribly informative about its stance on Christmas trees per se. It does say that the government must not be in the business of promoting one religion over another or of promoting religion at all.

I hardly think that a program to strengthen the natural-tree growers is an endorsement of Christianity itself.  So no Constitutional line has been crossed. That doesn't mean that the program is wise or desirable. That no one in the government had a second thought about implementing it only shows how deeply rooted these back-scratching programs are in our polity. That's the problem, not 15 cents.

Why does Obama believe weird things?

I get the title of this post from dueling headlines found on my morning surf.

First, from RCP: "Obama Pushes Jobs Bill: God Wants To See Us Put People Back To Work"

Second, on Science and Religion Today: "Why Evangelicals Believe Weird Things"

Put 'em together and what do you get? Although I do have to admit that I know that Obama has never characterized himself and an evangelical Christian.

The scariest Halloween photo ever!

The scariest Halloween photo ever: a scene from January 20, 2013:

The electorate reacts!

Republicans want you to die, part 3

Here is the video of Vice President Biden saying explicitly that rape, murder and burglaries will all rise because the Republicans won't let the federal government give $36 billion to the states. Note that in the video he first denies ever talking about rape, then repeats again the assertion he made that rapes will rise.

Finally, he walks away when asked whether it is appropriate for the vice president to be using such inflammatory language.



So what are we to conclude but that the Republicans just want you to die? And now they want you to die at the hands of a burglar who breaks into your house, rapes you and then murders you. It's a Biden hat trick!

Maybe Biden was thinking of this Republican operative:



Biden has asked for an investigation of whether the reporter in the video, Jason Mattera, broke Senate rules in his questioning of the VP.

Vice President Joe Biden is not happy about his exchange with a conservative journalist that went viral last week. In fact, The Hill reports he has voiced an official complaint to the Senate press gallery and is calling for an investigation into whether rules were broken when he was confronted about his comments about increasing rapes and murders if the president‘s jobs bill wasn’t passed.

Biden has since taken to the Senate press gallery to complain about the confrontation. The Hill reports that Biden aides have asked whether Senate rules were broken by the inquisitive reporter, and Biden’s office has also contacted the standing committee of correspondents, which over sees the gallery, to question if Mattera broke any rules.

So Mr. Mattera is getting the Full Alinsky. Meanwhile, the Washington Post's fact checker checked facts: "Biden’s absurd claims about rising rape and murder rates."

Interestingly, Flint Police Chief Lock has repeatedly asserted that cuts in staffing had little effect on the crime rate.

As the Flint Journal reported in May: “Officials said the fact that 46 police officers were laid off last year had little to do with the escalating crime. Most of the crimes were between people that knew each other. ‘No matter how many officers we have, we can't stop disputes between two people in their own homes,’ Lock said.”

Lock made a similar assertion in September, 2010, when FBI statistics were released showing violent crime in Flint had decreased in 2009. The Flint Journal reported: “A smaller police force doesn't automatically mean more crime, said Flint police chief Alven Lock. ‘There's been years when we had 300 officers and we still had more homicides,’ he said, referring to 1986, when he was in the homicide division and homicides hit an all-time high of 61.”

The WaPo's writer cites many more authorities showing pretty much no linkage between the number of police on duty and the number of murders or rapes, then concludes,

In any case, the vice president should know better than to spout off half-baked facts in service of a dubious argument. Even if one believes there is a link between crime and the number of police—which is debatable and subject to many caveats—there is no excuse to make the dramatic claim that more people will die or be raped without additional funds for police. When making such a breathtaking charge, you had better have your facts straight.

Four Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Korea, North and South - What? Me Worry?

As in almost everything in foreign affairs, the Obama administration's take on the worsening situation on the Korean peninsula is this:

The president's position toward North Korea is the same as toward Iran: stop doing what I don't like or I will wag my finger at you! The latest example:

On October 13th, President Obama warned the DPRK, with the decisive sternness he commonly uses when dealing with dictatorial and dangerous foreign regimes. There was no suggestion of U.S. military involvement. In essence, he asked that the DPRK stop being nasty if it wants more respect, more goodies, and fewer economic sanctions from the international community — of which the United States is no longer a principal, much less the, leader under his presidency. According to the linked report:

US President Barack Obama warned North Korea . . . that it would face deeper isolation and international pressure if it carried out more “provocations” like those that rattled Asia last year. Obama, standing side-by-side with South Korean Lee President Lee Myung-Bak at the White House, said Pyongyang could however expect greater opportunities if it lived up to its international obligations over its nuclear program. The two leaders discussed North Korea in their White House talks and said they were united in their approach towards Pyongyang. “Together we’ve succeeded in changing the equation with the North by showing that its provocations will be met not with rewards but with even stronger sanctions and isolation,” Obama said. . . . . ” If the North abandons its quest for nuclear weapons and moves towards denuclearization, it will enjoy greater security and opportunity for its people.”

Which is to say, Obama said nothing.

And get a grip on that last sentence: "If the North abandons its quest for nuclear weapons and moves towards denuclearization, it will enjoy greater security and opportunity for its people.”

Is our president really that clueless? Yes:

1. The North Korean regime is entirely uninterested in "greater security and opportunity for its people." The North Korean people are slaves, literally. The only security the regime is remotely interested in is of itself. And they know that to possess nuclear weapons is their best guarantee of their own security. Mr. President: it is not the security of the people that motivates the regime. It is the security of the regime that motivates the regime.

2. That being so, you have this year provided an object lesson to the regime (and every other atomic-power tyranny) that whatever they do, they must not under any circumstances give up their nuclear weapons or ambitions. As I wrote last March,

The war against Libya has given North Korea and Iran alike every incentive to keep their nuclear programs going at high speed, or even increase the pace. If Qaddafi had maintained his nuke program, would he have had a deliverable warhead by now? We can't know for sure. But had he announced say last year that he possessed even one atomic weapon atop a medium range ballistic missile, France and Italy would never have become so bellicose toward him a month ago.

And that same week, "North Korean radio has said that the bombing of Libya proves that North Korea must never give up its nuclear weapons, as Libya did in 2003."

And this week, Mr. president, you gave them photographic proof of what their nukes ensure will not happen to them.

Remember the Iran Plot? I asked at the time, "Is Iran really this stupid?" while fearing that the answer was not about Iran's stupidity but that it has assessed this administration all too well. Michael Ledeen put it on the line:

So, to answer the often-asked question (how could the leaders of the Iranian regime have approved such a provocative action in this country?): they do not fear us, they do not believe that Obama is capable of doing anything that would threaten their grip on power, and they viewed the operation as both a provocation and a humiliation of him and his administration. So far, the pathetic lack of anything approaching a serious response – not even a hint of support for regime change in Tehran — combined with empty ritualistic incantations a la “nothing is off the table” suggest that their assessment is correct.

And that is why North Korea takes not the slightest notice of the noises coming from Washington. Odd how this administration's theme song was written in 1968:

Smile an everlasting smile, a smile can bring you near to me.
Don't ever let me find you gone, cause that would bring a tear to me.
This world has lost its glory, let's start a brand new story now, my love.
Right now, there'll be no other time and I can show you how, my love.

Talk in everlasting words, and dedicate them all to me.
And I will give you all my life, I'm here if you should call to me.
You think that I don't even mean a single word I say.
It's only words, and words are all I have, to take your heart away

Hey, Biden-how much money to prevent these rapes?

Vice president Joe Biden has famously said that rapes will rise if the Congress doesn't give $36 billion to states and local governments to hire more cops or keep the ones they got.

So I'm wondering, Joe, since you and your boss have said how right as rain the "Occupy ____" groups are, how much money would it have taken to stop the rapes in their squatter's camps?

Republicans want you to die redux

Joe Biden doubles down:

Vice President Joe Biden now says he didn’t make a reference to rape, and got testy with HUMAN EVENTS when we asked if he would like to retract his comments that the number of sexual assaults would increase if Republicans don’t sign on to Barack Obama’s latest “jobs” proposal.

“I didn’t use, no no no…Let’s get it straight, guy. Don’t screw around with me,” Biden lashed out at HUMAN EVENTS. Then Biden confirmed that he indeed did talk about rape in terms of the President’s spending measure. “Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise,” if the Democrats agenda isn’t passed, he added.

Previous installment here.

As I have said, though, the only deaths Republicans thirst for is their own.

My flirtation with Obamaism

Remember when then-candidate Barack Obama told Joe "the Plumber" that he wanted "to spread the wealth around?"

No. Really. You're kidding me. Barack Obama actually told that Joe the Plumber guy that he wants to "spread the wealth around." What, did Obama just get done reading the Wikipedia entry on Huey "Share the Wealth" Long or something? Was he somehow channeling that left-wing populist from the Depression? Talk about playing into the most extreme stereotype of your party, that it is infested with socialists.

And that quote is from USNews, which supported Obama in 2008 (today, not so much).

On Monday I had my own flirtation with Obamaism and did not even realize what I had done until later in the day. That day my wife and daughter and I ate lunch at a Chinese buffet that we had never dined at before. The chow was fine and the young lady attending our table did a great job.

Now, here's the rub. I almost never under-tip. For me to leave less than the full tip (runs 15 percent or so around these part) happens maybe twice per year, and then for only truly terrible table service. I over-tip if the service is above average. This lady's service was.

So I go to the counter to pay the bill and ask for and receive a discount for being retired military, not an uncommon thing around here. Feeling generous, I added the discounted amount to the tip.

Then later in the afternoon it hit me: that was Obamaism in action. I basically took money from the restaurant's owner when I asked for the discount and gave it to one of his employees. So in fact, I sacrificed nothing and walked out feeling good about my generosity. But I was generous with OPM - and that is exactly what the entire political class of our country is doing to you and me.

I have learned a lesson here. But our government never does.

Endnote: Us Congressman Davy Crockett had something to say about this.

And here is the video with Joe the Plumber.



And just for the heck of it, here are the top 10 true facts about Davy Crockett. He makes Chuck Norris look like a pansy.

"Get used to him"

The American Spectator : The Woman on the Plane:

Ben Stein:

On the way home from the doctor today, though, on the radio news, I heard President Obama dropping the "g" sound at the end of his sentences the way he does when he thinks he's addressing working people. When he thinks he's addressing business people, he keeps in the "g" sound. That's politics. He could be a lot worse.

Just so you know, we don't have anyone who can beat him. Get used to him.

Thanks for the cheerfulness, Ben!