Hamas and the UN

From the Washington Post on a story about the UN run school/refuge center where 16 were killed yesterday:

Israel has said some of the facilities are used by Hamas militants to store rockets that are later fired on civilian populations in Israel. Gunness (of the UN) refused to comment on this, even though the United Nations has said it found rockets hidden on its premises.

And why would Hamas put rockets on UN grounds?
According to Hillary – they’re out of space.
Gaza is small. Where else can they put rockets other than in schools or on UN property? And who in the UN is approving this? That is the secondary culpable person.

Yeah – vote Hillary. doh

Can I Get an Amen?

As the media has co-opted the term Tea Party to mean very bad things, I continue to defend it.

Am very happy to see this post and this book that Glen Reynolds posted today.
Along with the quote from Reihan Salam:

“The Tea Party is not some temporary aberration that will seamlessly blend into the conservative establishment in a few years. It is a real movement and, as America grows more diverse and American politics grows more contentious, it will grow.”

Elections are coming up. Time to start activating again.

Our Esteemed Colorado Senator

Basically thinks he should control everything.

I kid you not. These are the words of an amendment (yes, an amendment to the constitution) he wanted to pass.

To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections, including through setting limits on –

(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, federal office; and

(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

since re-written since that is so over the top.

ht Instapundit who would note…..”we are in the best of hands”

“The Collapsing Obama Doctrine”

By Dick and Liz Cheney.

n one Arab capital, a senior official pulled out a map of Syria and Iraq. Drawing an arc with his finger from Raqqa province in northern Syria to Anbar province in western Iraq, he said, “They will control this territory. Al Qaeda is building safe havens and training camps here. Don’t the Americans care?”

Our president doesn’t seem to. Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent to the fact, that a resurgent al Qaeda presents a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

This was a good article, but rather than place full blame with Obama, I place it with the American people who tire quickly of the latest thing.
This country turned on Bush like he was the devil incarnate for the decisions he made because war was hard.
And now, it’s Obama’s turn. He is quickly turning to hash while doing exactly what “the people” requested of him.

The people chose not to vet him. They chose not to question him. They chose to believe his every word until (maybe) now. And so we have a president who cares more about something, (I don’t know what), than he does about this country. We are treated like mushrooms kept in the dark and then asked to trust the government because we let it be so. Bush was not immune and Obama took it three levels up. Hillary will be worse.

The blame belongs to all of those who not only voted for the man based on nothing, but also to all of those who voted a second time for him based on his horrible first term. If the lying, hiding, word playing, dismissive Hillary Clinton wins the next election the blame will fall on all who voted for her because a) she’s a woman and b) she seems strong.

Politics is a pain in the patooty to try to follow. Real information is tragically hard to come by. People’s “guts” told them to vote for Obama so you can’t trust that even. Good luck out there but we have the government we deserve.


So today in the Washington Post Richard Cohen unilaterally decides that even though the administration has lied about emails, and lied about documentation and lied about who changed what talking points when, and lied about causes and put one man in jail, and no one has been able to pinpoint where the president was, and no one has been pointed out as the person where the security concerns got stuck (though apparently everyone knows it was far, far, far below Hillary), that there is nothing to see here, and all Republicans talk in a mean way.

Seriously, go read it.

Heres’ some snips:

Tuning the car radio some weeks back, I heard the president denounced as a moron. I was shocked. ….But this is the way the president’s opponents talk. It is rude. It is crude. It is disrespectful and it is downright nuts — but it is not limited to radio talkers. It is the lingua franca of the Republican Party……..I know feelings can be strong and reason plays little part in it — faith is faith, after all — and this is the way I see the GOP snits about the Internal Revenue Service and, more pertinent, Benghazi. What are these people talking about?…………..So what is Benghazi? Beats me, I am tempted to say. ………………Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. It will show. . . . It will prove. . . . It will expose. . . . What? What the hell are you talking about?

Dear Mr. Cohen,
Until those on the stand are honest and open with those doing the questioning, the questions will remain. And that, my dear, is why they are having hearings. Will they get to the bottom of it? Probably not, because the whole group lies, but there is a far better chance at getting to the current implied, yet not proven proof with hearings than without.
I’d like the history books to be accurate if you don’t mind.

Knowing and “Knowing”

The Anchoress asks us to pray for Emily Letts, the woman who aborted her baby on youtube. No matter what Emily’s words say, her face says more.
Click on through and add this woman to your prayer chain.
Back in the early 80s I had an abortion that I too, thought would be a “nothing” affair. Well, maybe a little bit more than nothing, but certainly it was what “had” to be done.
The exact moment that he/she was suctioned out, I was empty.
It took awhile to crawl back from that. I suspect others were praying for me, like I’ll do for Emily.

Re-defining Terms in order to see Offense


What is a sissy?
Is a sissy, by definition a girl? hell no.
Is a sissy, by definition a boy who acts like a girl? not quite

A sissy is fearful of things. Afraid to try anything new. Squeamish.
Are more girls sissies, than boys? Perhaps, which is why boys who are effeminate may be called sissies, but the sissy part of the problem isn’t in emotions. It’s in fear and internal weakness.

So is the saying “Sea Level is for Sissies” a dis on emotions, or emotional girls? Good Lord, no.

Out Boulder, an LGBTQ advocacy group, has launched an online petition seeking to pressure organizers of the Bolder Boulder to drop their slogan “Sea Level is for Sissies” because they say the word “sissies” is derogatory.

But race organizers say they have no plans to retire the slogan.

The Change.org petition was posted Wednesday by Out Boulder’s executive director, Mardi Moore, and by the evening it had 25 signatures.

“The word is used to (demean) traits that are problematically and stereotypically associated with women,” the petition reads. “Traits that all genders have but are not valued because they are associated with women. … All genders express emotions and they should be embraced when they do.

“they say the word “sissies” is derogatory.” Um. yes. That’s the point. A mild insult to those at sea level all told in good teasing fun. (those of you at sea level get to deal with the ocean, a very scary place indeed.)

So – a few things to note. Good for the Bolder Boulder organizers for not allowing this insult to be abolished in the name of PC.
Good for the petition only having 25 signatures. HAHAHAHA
A pox on whoever decided to just change the definition of the word sissy to suit their own sensitive nature.


from Peggy Noonan at the WSJ via Jim Geraghty of NR’s Jolt (sign up here!).
The quote is regarding Pope John Paul II, but the column is in regards to Obama. I like this quote.

In the days before and after the canonization, I couldn’t help reflect on what a leader is, and how it is that great leaders engender gratitude, loyalty and love.

You have to stand for something. You have to suffer for it. (John Paul was shot and almost killed, and he spent the last third of his pontificate in constant physical distress. He kept showing up anyway.) You have to be brave. (He wasn’t afraid of any earthly power, not even the Soviet Union.) You have to stand by your beliefs as long as you know they are right; you have to speak and write the truth. Explaining what you believe involves trusting people to hear and consider; it assumes they will respond fairly and even with their highest selves. In this way you develop a relationship with people, an ongoing conversation between your articulations and their private thoughts. You are talking to them. When eventually they respond, they are talking to you.


Why must these games be played?
Especially if “what difference does it make“?

Karl points out that Carney has repeatedly insisted from the White House spokesman podium that these claims came from the CIA, not the White House.

The White House’s claim has been (for eighteen long months of lies) that whatever misrepresentations entered the talking points, and whatever truths departed from them (such as evidence that this was an Al Qaeda attack, that there had been previous attacks, that there had been previous warnings, etc.), it had nothing to do with the White House, as other people, not anyone in the White House, constructed the talking points.

Now comes this email from Ben Rhodes telling Ambassador Rice to go out there and sell the Internet Video cover story and so what does Jay Carney do?

He claims the talking points weren’t about Benghazi.

Exit Quote: “If you look at the document in question, it is not about Benghazi.”

Second Exit Quote: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US consulate and subsequently its annex.”

Third Exit Quote: After a year and a half of vigorously insisting the White House had no input into these Talking Points — that all information came from the CIA and FBI — Carney now says “obviously” the White House had input into the Talking Points.

Don’t these people have mirrors?