Vote As If Your Country Depended On It!

H/T The Jawa Report

GM is Alive (?) and Chris Stevens is Dead

Probably too late to reach the skulls full of mush that need this the worst, but I'm tired of hearing this whole "GM is alive" bunk. I call it bunk, because GM would have weathered a restructuring with or without Obama's meddling.

You ever eat a Twinkie®? Hostess Twinkies®...yellow cake outside, creamy filling in the middle. When was the last time you ate one? I saw some last time I was in the grocery store. Did you know that Hostess had declared bankruptcy? At least once, maybe twice? And yet, they are still on the shelves...how can this be?

Well, for starters, there's more than one kind of bankruptcy. Chapter eleven gives a company a chance to restructure and reorganize and ideally, come out whole on the other side. Many people are seemingly only familiar with a chapter thirteen bankruptcy, where the door are shuttered, the remaining assets divided up among their creditors.

And every time Democrat, lying through their teeth, politicians (but I repeat myself), spoke of what Romney wanted to do to (or for) the auto industry, they spoke of bankruptcy in terms of chapter thirteen, as if unemployed auto workers were at the top of Romney's wish list.

Enter Obama. Instead of allowing GM and Chrysler to go through a legal restructuring, he imposed a political restructuring. Only, unlike the bankruptcy at Hostess which allowed them to renegotiate unreasonable or overly expensive union contracts, the political deal locked in lavish union salaries and benefits, at the expense of bond holders and the American taxpayer.

Yes, GM is "alive". But, so is Hostess! Obama didn't save jobs at GM so much as he saved overly generous union benefits. And then, he gave a large controlling interest in GM to the unions. This will make it easier for GM to negotiate reasonable contracts with the unions in the future /sarc.

(BRB - all this talk of Twinkies® is making me hungry!)

Much better! Now, where were we? Ah, yes, political restructuring. Businesses need money to run on, to meet payroll, make expansions, buy new raw materials, etc. People who bought GM bonds, did so at a slightly reduced rate or return (how much money they got paid for their investment, like interest on a savings account), for a guarantee of lesser risk. Risky investments pay higher rates of return, because there's less guarantee you'll even get your money back. As such, GM bondholders were supposed to get "first dibs" in any restructuring process. But since Obama's restructuring was political, he could make up the rules as he went along. (Maybe this is what he meant about "not everyone playing by the same rules"?)

GM bondholders got the shaft, in favor of the unions. Non union subsidiaries of GM, like Delphi, had their pensions decimated to cover the union pensions. Welcome to the crazy world of "fairness" under Barack Obama! I cannot tell you the extent, but if I were an investor in bonds, I would keep my money in a mattress before putting it at risk in any company the president might want to restructure for the purpose of his friends!

And even though "GM is alive and bin Laden is dead" makes a lovely bumper sticker, it is based on two lies. One, is that GM would have collapsed without Obama's political restructuring. That is false. Many companies have gone in and out of chapter eleven bankruptcy and are thriving today. The main difference is, that there are very specific rules and laws governing legal bankruptcy. Obama's was more reminiscent of a banana republic.

Second, for all the chest thumping at the Charlotte convention, and Democrats continually "spiking the ball" about the death of bin Laden, al Qaeda did not curl up and die when bin Laden was shot. For the Obama administration to equate the death of one man to the death of a movement is foolishly naive. When Lincoln or JFK was assassinated, did the country cease to exist because we were momentarily leaderless? Or did we pick up right where we left off, only under different leadership?

Instead of "GM is alive and bin Laden is dead", substitute "Al Qaeda is alive and the economy is dead" and you'll be better at summing up the last four years of this administration. Or you could personalize it: "Al Qaeda is alive and Chris Stevens is dead".

America: we can do better! Tomorrow's the day to find out!

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

"Bow to Nobody" -New Special Operations For America ad

Think that just about sums it up for some of us.

H/T Conservative Videos

Still Time to Get Your Yard Signs!

'There's Never Been A Day In The Last Four Years I've Been Proud To Be His Vice President'

Pay attention, Joe! Repeat after me: P-O-T-A-T-O.

Bill Whittle on Standing on Principle and Voting

Certainly thought provoking...

Cross posted at LCR,Say Anything.

Benghazi: Obama's Chappaquiddick?

Many of you are too young to remember Chappaquiddick. A married Senator, Ted Kennedy, driving home from a party late one night, with a young woman not his wife, lost control of his car, possibly (probably) because alcohol was involved, and when his car plunged off the Chappaquiddick bridge, into the dark and murky water, only one person made it out of the wreck alive. One person who did not call authorities, did not make every attempt to rescue his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, and then huddled with lawyers and political consultants to see if they could craft some plausible story that would preserve his political viability. Yes, it was tragic that a young woman lost her life, but, just think what great things he could do as a Senator, or even President someday, but certainly not if this young woman's death was laid at his doorstep. Not if his seeming cowardice and indecision made him unfit to be the nation's Commander-in-Chief.

Fast forward 43 years, to Barack Obama, who wasn't quite eight when Teddy Kennedy's Oldsmobile proved to be a less than satisfactory floatation device. I see a parallel in the Benghazi scandals. Yes. Scandals, plural.

First, was the negligence that preceded the attack. The administration put out the statement that Libya is a "dangerous place". The administration is a master of understatement. The State Department reported over 200 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012. Roughly one fourth of those were in Benghazi. The US mission was the last Western presence in Benghazi. The Brits pulled out in June and the Red Cross pulled out in August after Rocket Propelled Grenade attacks on each. Add to that, the US mission had already been bombed twice this year.

If it was so important we be there, when all our Western allies were exercising the better part of valor, why wasn't it important enough to provide adequate security, or at least a Marine presence? Was the administration foolish enough to believe their own press clippings about "getting bin Laden" and al-Qaeda being "on the run"? Is this merely what Leon Panetta calls "Monday morning quarterbacking"? Or do two bombs, two RPG attacks that chased the last of your allies out of the country, added to two score and more violent incidents in Benghazi, constitute a cause for added security, if not a strategic withdrawal? And perhaps, even much more so on the anniversary of 9/11? Scandal one.

Scandal two is the response of the administration as the attack was taking place. This is potentially the biggest of the three. From the start of the attack until its conclusion was around seven hours. We had troops on standby in Italy, two hours away, staged and trained for contingencies such as this. We had instantaneous communication from our people in Benghazi at the start of the attack. Shortly after, we had real time video from surveillance drones overhead and we had people taking fire. According to some sources, the president himself was actually watching the video feed in real time. Given the circumstances and protocols, it is certainly plausible. We may have even had a C-130 gunship in close proximity, which was recalled, and the General, responsible for ordering the aircraft on station, being relieved by the C-in-C, if certain accounts are to be believed.

Senator John McCain is on the record as saying the White House was "either grossly incompetent or covering (something) up". Recently a CIA spokesperson said,

"No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate."

So, the CIA stood ready, the military stood ready...why was there apparently no one in the White House to make a "gutsy call"? Did they in fact override someone else who made a "gusty call"? Or did someone make a purely political calculation? That this close to the election, especially after crowing for a week and thumping his scrawny chest at the Charlotte convention that he, Obama, had "gotten" bin Laden and al-Qaeda was "on the run", that terrorism might not have been vanquished by Obama's magic bullet? That perhaps instead of a continual draw down, preceding the exit of our troops from the region, our forces might need to remain or even realize a temporary escalation of forces, in order to bring greater stability to the region. I'd suggest that Obama seek this recommendation from our generals in the field and not the concierge at the Bellagio, no matter how similar their uniforms may look to him.

How badly might Obama's political viability be diminished if it turned out his Pollyanna view of terrorism, the war on terror and terrorist threats, had no basis in reality? Someone at the very highest levels of the Obama administration, if not Obama himself, made a conscious effort to do nothing to save those Americans in peril, fighting for their very lives against overwhelming odds, hoping and praying that someone would come to their rescue.

What did Obama know and when did he know it? Then, what exactly did he do about it? He has been asked these questions point blank, and evades the questions by promising more investigations... that will conclude sometime after the November elections. Convenient. However, Obama does not need to launch an investigation to tell us what he knew and when he knew it. All it requires is a backbone, something we generally require in our Commanders-in-Chief. But, don't hold your breath.

Scandal three is the bewildering, ham handed attempt to cover up a naked act of terrorism with some fairy tale about an obscure video, and the escalation of a demonstration that never took place. For weeks, Obama and his surrogates spread the tale of a video, or maybe the trailer for a video, on You Tube, that maligned the prophet Mohammed. Five times on the Sunday shows after the attack, Obama's ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was unequivocal that the video was the cause of the violence, and yet within hours, if not minutes of the attack, the White House knew this not to be the case. Jay Carney, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Obama himself all took turns at trying to sell this "unforeseeable escalation of an angry mob, because of a video" meme, when at least half of them did and all of them should have known it was false. It seems our first black president wants to go down as the first black President with a massive, Watergate style cover up all his own. What? Fast and Furious wasn't enough??

Ted Kennedy wasn't man enough to take responsibility for what he did, and did not call for help to save the life of Mary Jo Kopechne, because he feared the political consequences, i.e., the end of his political ambitions. Barack Obama wasn't man enough to call for help, for even a remote chance to save the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods or Glen Doherty, because it would draw attention to his failed foreign policies and might jeopardize his re-election chances, and spell the end of all his political ambitions and the perquisites that come with the office.

Here was Obama's chance to make a genuine "gutsy call". To go down in history as a C-in-C that left no man behind, at least, not if he could help it. There was no guarantee of success, just a guarantee of failure if nothing was done. Obama could have even asked for volunteers, from among those dedicated to defending their country and fellow citizens, and as a way of life believed in leaving no man behind. They could stand alongside men who themselves had charged into harm's way, against orders, because they could not sit idly by while their fellow countrymen were slaughtered. (Unlike some other REMF, "lead from behind" weenies in the White House situation room we could mention.) Obama could have at least make an effort to rescue those Americans in Libya. Or he could dither and diddle until it was too late to do anything but crawl off to bed and get ready for a campaign fundraiser in Vegas the next day, and then Letterman, and so on. After all, there were just a handful of them. More people than that die on any given weekend in Chicago, right Mr. President?

We know which course he chose. Faced with a genuine "gutsy call" the Ditherer-in-Chief dithered. And brave men died. And then, like Teddy Kennedy before him, Obama was too cowardly to either make the hard call or to stand up like a man for what he did. So he huddled with lawyers and political consultants to see if he could craft some plausible story that would preserve his political viability. He pressed his Secretary of State, UN ambassador and press secretary, into service to help him sell the story, and then he left for Vegas to laugh with and schmooze his big donor buddies. Funny how he told America not to spend money in Las Vegas (which hurt the economy there), because it was too much a sign of opulence, and then it's the place he bee lines for, after perhaps the one most disgraceful act of his (or any) presidency, and he doesn't see a problem with it.

The details are still slowly oozing out, like a festering wound, each revelation worse than the one before. From the time I write this until the time you read it, who knows what further revelation will expose?

And like Teddy before him, Obama's seeming cowardice and indecision make him unfit to be the nation's Commander-in-Chief. Teddy Kennedy put on a fake neck brace for sympathy, at least for as long as it took for him to tell his story to a judge. Someone should get Barack a neck brace. He can wear it to Mitt's inauguration.

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Clint Eastwood Ad For Mitt Romney

Quietly impressive. Spread the word! H/T John Lott

The Time Has Come, Obama Said, To talk of Many Things. Of Shoes and Ships and Sealing Wax, Of Bayonets and Things...

In last night's debate, Obama's most memorable moment was not his most presidential. Governor Romney brought up the fact that our navy has the "fewest ships since 1917*". Now reasonable men can argue about the size navy we need to carry out America's mission around the globe. Unfortunately, Mr. Romney couldn't find a reasonable man to have the discussion with! Obama could have addressed the efficiency of modern warships, or their capabilities. Instead, Barry turned to what he knows best: children's games and things he learned on the Turner Movie Channel.

"Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships. "

Wow! Barry's going after the condescending snark vote! But back in the real world, in the face of China's growing blue water navy and worldwide terrorist attacks, the size and use of a worldwide navy to serve as a projection of US power around the globe is a discussion we should be having.

Overlooking the ignorance of our Commander in Chief on the use of both bayonets and horses in modern warfare, why not discuss how appropriate the size of our navy is to the task? Seems to me, if Romney's observation was unfounded or misguided, to be an excellent way to demonstrate your command of military doctrine and tactics as well as the fiscal responsibility to manage resources in times of debt and deficit.

Instead, we have the childish condescension of what may be the extent of Obama's knowledge on the subject: planes land on aircraft carriers and submarines are "ships (sic) that go underwater". (BTW, Mr. Obama, the navy refers to submarines as "boats", not "ships". Don't believe me? Ask the nearest "corpseman"!)

And then, instead of a serious discussion or even an honest answer, the Bamboozler-in-Chief sarcastically tells Gov. Romney that military preparedness is "not a game of Battleship".

Neither is a presidential election, Mr. President. You had a platform and an opportunity to address the American people on a matter of national security. Instead, you took a cheap shot at a political opponent, which had the effect of making you look petty and ill informed.

You know, Mr. Obama, there may be some who might say, given your juvenile performance, that all you know about military strategy you learned from playing Battleship. Not me! I'd say you saw the movie, too!

*Actually, it was 1916

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Barack Obama Gets the Coveted Honey Boo Boo Endorsement

Whew! Glad that one's behind them!

Barack Obama is "Fighting for You"...Above His Weight Class!

This week, I saw what was to be an unfortunate comparison for the Democrat contender for the Presidency. BTW, is the opposite of "Rocky", "Stoney"?

Many of you know, I live in Stockton California, at one time, and perhaps to date, the largest city in the country to declare bankruptcy. As such, I guess we are a microcosm of the country at large. Anyway, in the mayoral race here, the top of the ticket citywide, the Mayor is running for re-election. Not running on her record, because, after all...we're bankrupt! Crime is on the rise. We don't have enough money to pay for all the police we need and many experienced officers are taking their time and talents elsewhere. Cops are leaving about as fast (or faster) than we can hire them. This makes crime suppression and criminal apprehension a challenge at best.

So, she can't really promise a lot of pork, since there's little to dish out. She can't run on how wonderful things are since she's been mayor, so what does she do? She adopts the campaign slogan that she is "fighting for our city". Wow. I feel better already!

And then I got to thinking that I'd heard that someplace before. Obama's closing statement at the first presidential debate he said he was "fighting for us"! No offense, Mr. President, but if you throw Pee Wee Herman in against Mike Tyson, it really doesn't matter how hard he's fighting for us, if he doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.

Obama must have focus grouped this word, since it's a regular part of his stump speech.

"Mr. Obama used the word "fighting" thirteen times in the speech, which he delivered at Lorain County Community College in Elyria, and the word "fight" an additional nine times." Jan 2010

Video from Jan of 2012: in addition to repeating the lie that he's "signed a "trillion dollars in spending cuts", even though the federal budget only gets larger every single year under Obama, and that he will wake up every single day (before he heads to the golf course) to think about how to make this country better, Obama promises to "spend every ounce of energy I have fighting for you". Jan 2012

Again, Pee Wee Herman can spend "every ounce of energy he has" against Mike Tyson, but the results will be the same. Even Clueless Joe Biden is getting into the act!

@JoeBiden tweeted, in what has been called "the most focus-grouped tweet in the history of Twitter", "Barack and I are in this because we'll never stop fighting for you."

Why does Team Obama tell you they are "fighting for you"? Simple. To distract you from the actual results of any "fighting". Presumably, Obama has been "spending every ounce of energy he has" fighting for us, for the last four years and where has it gotten us? In 2008, candidate Obama told us that, as president, he would go through the budget "line by line" to discover and eliminate any waste in government spending. Other than cuts to the military, can you point to even a single line of that budget he has cut? Instead, it has grown to Brobdingnagian proportions under his "watchful eye"!

And when he tells us of his "vision" for America, one filled with flowery words and empty platitudes...didn't he have the exact same vision four years ago? What's changed that makes you think he will be any more successful the next four years than he was the last four?

And do you honestly think the country can survive four more years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, higher energy and food costs? Please don't "vote like your 'lady parts' depend on it" Vote like all your parts depend on it.


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Hillary Appoints CYA Review Board on Benghazi

Most notable takeaway: "We cannot afford to sacrifice accuracy to speed." Oh, really? Wasn't it just a month ago that you and the rest of the Obama administration were pronouncing some obscure video as the cause of the violence, even though you had evidence within hours of the attack that it wasn't a "demonstration that escalated", but a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11? Is this some new found principle with you, Ms. Clinton, because it certainly looked like speed rather than accuracy was the watchword in getting out a political cover story to protect Obama's failed Middle East policy, just a few short weeks ago.

And wasn't it you, Madame Secretary, who spent some $70,000 of taxpayer's money to produce a commercial to show in Pockeestan (with all due reverence to BHO), to distance the US from a video that more people heard about through your commercial than had ever heard of it in the first place? Trying to commit a little "self fulfilling prophecy" here, Mrs. C? Blame the video for inflaming Muslims and then go out and inflame millions of Muslims to prove your point? Wasn't that apology a "rush" job as well?

And now you've appointed a government committee, notorious for their slowness, which you have already told us will be slow and deliberate (well, at least slow!) to chew over the facts until sometime after the November elections, before anyone owns up to their responsibility in the obvious failure to defend the US soil of our embassy?

I see your review board as little more than a CYA movement, to Cover Your Assets politically and to stall any real investigation until any outrage over the events is deferred past the November 6th elections.

It is good for you to be prudent in your investigations, at least belatedly. I hear that Obama is fitting you for a nice spot under his bus...after he's milked your husband for all the campaign help he can get. Perhaps you are his last "October Surprise"?


Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

" 41 Medal of Honor Recipients Endorse Mitt Romney"

Hokey smokes! There are around 81 living recipients of "The Medal". Looks like a little over half have endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

“Of all the heroes that have served in our armed forces, only a few have had the great privilege of receiving the Medal of Honor,” said Mitt Romney. “They are the best of us all, and their dedication to our freedoms and their fellow servicemen and women serves as a shining example to every American. I am deeply honored and grateful to have the support of so many of these brave men, but my deeper thanks is for their service to this nation.”

A list of those men endorsing Romney:

Don Ballard
Harvey Barnum
Gary Beikirch
Pat Brady
Jon Cavaiani
Bruce Crandall
Sammy Davis
George “Bud” Day
Roger Donlon
Walter Ehlers
Frederick Ferguson
Michael Fitzmaurice
James Fleming
Wesley Fox
Harold Fritz
Salvatore Giunta
Charles Hagemeister
Tom Hunder
Robert Ingram
Joe Jackson
Allan Kellogg
Gary Littrell
James Livingston
Allen Lynch
Walter Marm
Robert Maxwell
John McGinty
Hiroshi Miyamura
Lee Mize
Robert Modrzejewski
Thomas Norris
Robert Patterson
Richard Pittman
Alfred Rascon
Ronald Rosser
Kenneth Stumpf
James Taylor
Michael Thornton
Leo Thorsness
Jay Vargas
Hershel Williams

BTW, you can copy their names onto the search widget, below the spinning globe, and it will take you to their Medal of Honor citation on this site.

More at Mitt Romney Central

Separated at Birth?

Anyone else notice the resemblance after the lovely and gracious Michelle met her husband on the stage in Denver at the end of the debate?

Life of Bird

You Don't Have to be a Lying Coward to be a Democrat (But, it Helps!)

(Bloomberg) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted that Congress will reach a deal after the Nov. 6 election to avert hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases and spending cuts known as the “fiscal cliff” set to begin in January.

Got that? Harry Reid, who hasn't been able to pass a budget in over three years is confident that between the election and the end of the year, that Congress will pass a bipartisan agreement, to avoid Taxmageddon and massive automatic budget cuts to the military.

Between November 6th and December 31st, a little over a month and a half, with just Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's Eve in the way, Harry Reid is going to reveal all the economic plans he and the president have for the country but couldn't in any way reveal before the election, if they had a prayer of keeping their jobs and make all the country's problems go away. . That's going to happen. Yeah. Right!

“I do not believe that we are going to go over the fiscal cliff,” Reid, a Nevada Democrat, told reporters in Washington Thursday, adding that he opposed a short-term deal. “I’m in favor of long term.”

Unless Congress acts, $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts will begin in January and the George W. Bush-era tax cuts will expire Dec. 31. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the fiscal changes would amount to $607 billion in tax increases and spending reductions for 2013 alone. Democrats propose letting tax cuts expire for top earners, while Republicans want to extend the tax cuts for everyone and back spending reductions instead of more tax revenue.

If you happened to catch tonight's presidential debate, Obama nattered on about how Mitt was "hiding" the cuts he intends to make and the loopholes he intends to close. And here, Harry Reid and the Democrats, believing we are heading for a fiscal cliff, are hiding all their cuts, hiding their spending plans and hiding every plan they have to deal with this economic mess, from you and I. They have to deal with over a trillion dollars worth of cuts, one way or the other, but are too cowardly to tell their bosses, the American people what they plan to do, until after its too late to change your vote this November, much like they failed to pass a budget in October of 2010, 'less their losses would have been even bigger. They are willing to gamble the economic future of this country, and everyone in it, for the sake of partisan political gain.

Harry Reid and the Democrats have nothing but contempt for you. Return the favor on November 6th.

Cross posted at Say Anything, LCR.

The Empty Chair for "Step Forward" (video)

I saw this on TV last night. At first, I thought it was an Obama campaign commercial, but it appears to be an old PSA (public service announcement) for Step Forward. Someone apparently thought it would be a good idea to run this multiple times, in prime time, as a sort of "contribution in kind" to the Obama campaign.

One thing that would have be changed had they remade this PSA recently, is the empty chair about 20 seconds in.

Cross posted at Say Anything

Great Moments in Hypocrisy - Starring Harry Reid

Last week, I was driving down to Fresno, and I heard something so outrageously hypocritical from Senate majority leader Harry Reid, that I thought to myself, if there is a Hypocrites' Hall of Fame, that Mr. Reid would surely get in on the first draft. And then, each subsequent newscast provided yet another line just as Hall of Fame worthy. Perhaps the biggest laugher was this one on the Republicans budget plans:

"What loopholes do they want to close? They will not say. It's part of their fictitious math."

"They will not say". Gosh, Harry! I can't imagine a political party not explicitly writing down what their spending goals are for the country. We could call it a...budget! Say, haven't you failed to produce a budget in the Senate for over three years now, Mr. Reid? What exactly are you and the Democrats "not saying"? Harry, you and the Democrats have been "not saying" what the federal budget should be since before the 2010 elections, probably because you knew that if the public was aware of the specifics of the Democrats' spending plan, your large losses in 2010 would have been much, much larger.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Harry.

Mr. Obama's Neighborhood

I miss Fred Rogers. His evident kindness and gentleness were a quiet reassurance to his audience that everything was going to be okay. There was always some small object lesson whenever the little trolley took us to the Land of Make Believe. Today, I think the heir apparent to Mr. Rogers is...Barack Obama!

Mr. Obama has constructed quite a neighborhood of make believe, taking credit for military actions he either opposed or sought to defund, claiming to have cut spending while increasing our deficit spending by trillions of dollars, obstructing oil exploration and production on federally controlled land while claiming credit for increased oil production that was beyond his control, avoiding our allies while funding their enemies, helping to overthrow other allies with little clue as to what or who would replace them... The list goes on and on.

I thought of this comparison when I thought back to the phony, Styrofoam Greek columns of the 2008 Democrat convention. It reminded me, just a little bit, of the crenelated towers of King Friday's castle, and every bit as substantive. Also, Mr. Obama's Imaginary Gravitas world tour in 2008, where he famously went to 10 Downing Street, not to visit the English Prime Minister in his home, but to merely stand in front of his house and make a speech! Appearance is everything, don'tcha know?

The trolley would need to be renamed "Folly", as only folly would take you to revisit Mr. Obama's Land of Make Believe. Mr. Obama attempts to reassure us with that gentle voice, as he changes into his "comfortable shoes" (the ones he said he would use to march with striking union members. Hm. Must have misplaced those shoes somewhere in Chicago!), and pull on his sweater, which we all need now, since Obama bankrupted the coal industry and raised the cost of energy to heat our homes this winter!

All our old favorites would be there. Bill Clinton as "Mr. McFeely". (No. Seriously!) Either Michelle or Hillary could do Lady Elaine Fairchilde. Debbie Wasserman Schultz could do Harriet Elizabeth Cow. Joe Biden as Prince Tuesday, and, in a bit of casting genius, Eric Holder as Malcolm X the Owl.

In Obama's Neighborhood of Make Believe, Mr. Obama is a fiscally responsible, bold and decisive leader, who will lead us into a world that loves us, unlike the one that cowboy Bush was responsible for. Just ignore the demonstrations where they burn Obama in effigy, throw shoes at his picture and invade American embassies with impunity. More importantly (to him) Mr. Obama also stands to do battle with the Republicans in their War on Women, bolstered by such stalwart defenders of womenhood such as Teddy Kennedy and Bill Clinton...if he can ever drag himself away from the golf course!

Oh, and the lesson that can be learned today in our little trip to Mr. Obama's Neighborhood of Make Believe?

We'd better vote for Mitt Romney this November!

I'm Fred Rogers, and I approve this message!*


*If you believe that, you may be so far into the land of make believe, that there is no return!

Cross posted at LCR, Lady Cincinnatus

What is Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Afraid of?

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who incidentally looks good for 102, refuses to debate her Republican challenger Elizabeth Emken.


Even those liberal bastions ABC and the LA Times can't shame her into honest and open political discourse with her opponent. Personally, I don't thinks she's hiding any skeletons in her closet. I just think she may have trouble finding her closet!

More at The Blaze