Senator Daniel K. Inouye, hero . . .

One doesn’t have to agree politically to appreciate those who made it possible to disagree politically.

Via The Wall Street Journal with permission:

From the Medal of Honor citation for Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye, who died Monday at age 88:

“With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper’s bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. In the attack, 25 enemy soldiers were killed and eight others captured. By his gallant, aggressive tactics and by his indomitable leadership, Second Lieutenant Inouye enabled his platoon to advance through formidable resistance, and was instrumental in the capture of the ridge.”

Posted in Liberalism | Leave a comment

Bob Costas, the Vertically Challenged . . .

Bob Costas, Sportscaster, should apologize for his incoherent and childish rant during last evening’s football game. He won’t.

Posted in Liberalism | Leave a comment

Extend the Obama Tax Cuts!

For reasons known only to God – not to be confused with Barry Hussein Soetoro Obama – or the blame-tream media, we still hear of the “Bush Tax Cuts.” But, we ask, “Who signed the legislation enacting he current rates of tax, including the 35% maximum?” Yes, it’s true. Upon close examination is is Barry’s odd scrawl some two years ago after a bad-faith negotiation over the “debt ceiling.” The result is the “fiscal cliff.”

Further, we are told that “Bush’s wars”, and “Bush’s tax cuts” have led us to the fiscal cliff. Alas, another lie is exposed by, drum roll please . . .  THE WHITE HOUSE!

White House Data Debunk Myth Bush Cuts Built Deficit

Hat tip to Mark Ashworth.

Posted in Capitalism, In the "Mainstream", Socialism | 1 Comment

Warren Buffet, Doddering Fool, or Fatuous Fraud?

Warren Buffet has again cynically called for higher taxes on “the rich,” those with incomes above $1,000,000. That’s one million dollars for our “Progressive” friends who are innumerate.

Of course Mr. Buffet’s scheme is reminds us of the late Senator Russell Long of Louisiana who protested, “Don’t tax him. Don’t tax me. Tax that man behind the tree!”

As the fine economist Greg Mankiw notes in his blog Mr. Buffet takes advantage of some ginormous “loopholes” that assure he will not pay at a higher rate; will not pay estate taxes to benefit the fisc; and generally he is a tax dodger, which is his right when done legally.

But, he wants to tax the man behind the tree.

Posted in Capitalism, In the "Mainstream", Taxation | Tagged , | Leave a comment

And we thought “Navy Corpse-man” was bad? Barry Obama – Gaffemeister

Courtesy of Investor’s Business Daily

Diplomacy: So amid all the colorful and flirty photos from President Obama’s first tour of Southeast Asia, what did he actually accomplish? As usual, he served himself politically in what was largely a Potemkin mission abroad.

It was obvious enough from the rubelike gaffes that the president hasn’t been particularly interested or attentive to the affairs of Thailand, Burma or Cambodia as he made his first trip since his re-election. It was pretty much all style over substance.

In his tour of Burma, billed as an historic first visit since Burma’s 2007 move to democracy, it was clear he was in way over his head, even on small things. Obama repeatedly referred to the country’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning leader Aung San Suu Kyi as Aung Yan Suu Kyi, an astonishing error given her global fame.

He also bungled the norms of Burmese polite address, calling Thein Sein, the nation’s leader “President Sein,” an error comparable to addressing Cambodia’s Pol Pot as Mr. Pot.

But he also undermined his supposed democracy mission, first by telling the Burmese leaders that he too wished he could govern without opposition, calling into question whether he himself believed in the representative government he was advocating.

It didn’t help that he ignored the real heroes who helped push Burma toward a more open system — President and Mrs. Bush, as well as Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Sens. John McCain and Mitch McConnell, seeming to take credit for it himself.

That emptiness of purpose left showy photo-ops in all three countries, with the president flirting around with Thailand’s photogenic Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and visiting the Buddha statues, effectively trivializing Thailand as a tourist trap instead of a major trading partner and the U.S.’s oldest ally in Asia.

Neither trade nor military matters were addressed substantively. Obama’s lecture to Thailand about its democracy needing “improvement” was a fairly strong signal that he had no intention of restoring free-trade talks with the Thais, who lost their access to that a few years ago after a military coup that has since restored democracy.

The other cornerstone of the U.S.-Thai relationship — the military — wasn’t advanced either, given Obama’s efforts to cut the U.S. Navy to 1918 levels even as he talks of a “strategic pivot” to Asia.

No substance, no influence. Nothing underlined this quite like the lack of crowds greeting Obama in all three nations. When a leader’s visit is cause for hope and a catalyst for change — think Pope John Paul II’s 1978 Poland visit — crowds turn out. Obama, supposedly representing the greatest nation on earth, couldn’t draw so much as an Occupy-sized crowd. Nor did he draw respect.

On his trip to Cambodia, a country he claimed didn’t deserve a visit due to its strongman government, first lady Bun Rany greeted Obama with a traditional “sampeah” pressed-hands greeting reserved for servants, a little dig that was probably lost on him but not to Asians.

So what is really Obama’s tour about? Apparently a get-out-of-town photo-op all about himself as a means of avoiding pressing problems back home. The Asians deserve better — and so do the Americans.

Posted in Barack Hussein Obama, In the "Mainstream", Progressivism, Socialism | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Elections have consequences . . .

Just ask Jack Nicholson in blackface:

 

Posted in Liberalism | Leave a comment

President nObama should ditch his dog . . .

It keeps eating his homework! White House denies, again, and again, and again . . .

Posted in Liberalism | Leave a comment

Ethno-Progressive Politics writ Large

This map of American’s and Progressive’s voting patterns, detailed to the county is illustrative.  As bi-coastal America collapses (over a thousand Californians flee every day) will the “Progressives,” Blacks and “Hispanics” take  with them their politics which wrought the decay and financial ruin epidemic in Democrat run urban areas they flee?

 

Posted in Liberalism | Leave a comment

With permission from The Wall Street Journal, we salute General Douglas MacArthur

Gen. Douglas MacArthur, in a speech at West Point in 1962, quoted in his memoir “Reminiscences” (1964):

Duty-Honor-Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points; to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor the brilliance of metaphor to tell you all what they mean. The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character; they mold you for your future roles as custodians of the nation’s defense; they make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brace enough to face yourself when you are afraid. They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success, not to substitute words for action, not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm but to have compassion on those who fail; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future yet never neglect the past; to be serious yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.

They give you a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, and appetite for adventure and a love of ease. They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman.

Posted in Liberalism | Leave a comment

We’re Guessing that the Ethicist said, “Shut up! Don’t mess with Barry!”

Here’s a letter to the New York Times Magazine‘s “ethicist,” which was published over the summer:

My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD

It sure looks like a letter from Paula Broadwell’s husband about his wife’s carrying on with babe magnet David Betrayus, er Patreaus….

Posted in Patreaus | Tagged , | Leave a comment