If Obama’s proud of the troops, why doesn’t he act like it?
September 2nd, 2010
Dacia Nichol Taylor
On matters of national security, the president will often cite the bravery and sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform.
Why doesn’t he seem to like talking about them?
Since he doesn’t support the Second Amendment, surely no one was holding a gun to his head, forcing him to address our mission and our soldiers. Yet he did so, appearing stone-faced and bored.
Why doesn’t he appear as he says he is, proud of them?
Above it all.
The president says he supports our troops and had some sparkling things to say about them in his Oval Office address on Tuesday night.
Why wasn’t he with them?
Maybe that was the point. By keeping his distance, he displayed what we already knew about him.
The president does not like his predecessor, does not like being in Iraq, nominated a Supreme Court Justice who does not like the military, and now, at the end of our successful mission in Iraq – no, our victory in Iraq – he has chosen to send his vice president to do his bidding and attend the ceremonial end and transition of the mission.
Posted in 
Look Rocky! Watch me pull a senator out of my hat!
September 2nd, 2010
Brett Noel
cartoon
cartoon
cartoon
cartoon
cartoon
cartoon
Large version for newspaper publication.
Greyscale version for newspaper publication.
Why is Operation Iraqi Freedom over? Don’t ask Obama
September 2nd, 2010
Dan Calabrese
Rather than discussing how good or bad a speech President Obama gave Tuesday night on Iraq – since Obama has proven that good oratory doesn’t do a damn thing for the country – let’s ask the key question about the central statement of the speech itself, which was:
“Operation Iraqi Freedom is over.”
Forget this ever happened.
All right, then. Why is Operation Iraqi Freedom over? Is it:
- Because it succeeded?
- Because it failed?
- Because it’s not worth the effort?
- Because it’s too dangerous?
- Because the enemy gave up?
- Because the Iraqis told us to get out?
Don’t get too hyped over November
August 31st, 2010
David Karki
Right now, the polls are favoring Republicans in a way never before seen. Talk of gaining as many as hundred seats in the House and re-taking a Senate that had been one vote short of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority is, for the first time, seeming rather realistic. Even many Democrats will quietly and/or anonymously admit that they’ve already accepted substantial losses. The only question that remains is how big they will be.
Goodbye.
While it goes without saying that no chickens should be counted before they hatch, I would argue that the same would still hold true afterward. Even if all that conservatives hope for comes true on election night, and the GOP takes back Congress in stunning fashion and begins a Tea Party Caucus, we should not presume that this will immediately usher in the reversal of all Obama, Pelosi and Reid have rammed down America’s throat. In fact, we will still be moving in that same Marxist direction.
Beck hits the target, but not on civil rights
August 31st, 2010
Dacia Nichol Taylor
The Restoring Honor rally this past Saturday was a success, and the exhaustion toll was not lost on Glenn Beck. Any regular Beck listener is aware that sometimes the man gets a little overwhelmed, and often has a slip or two that can be clipped and replayed for any opposition goons’ delight. Rush Limbaugh is a frequent fatality of such sound byte tactics. There’s also the “gotcha” moment, where a question is posed that can be answered with some greased maneuvering if executed with precision. But Beck seems to have missed that Interview 101 memo and found himself floundering for Chris Wallace of Fox News.
Success.
That’s right, he got whupped on the home front.
I love Chris Wallace. He’s by far my favorite journalist (for my political awareness lifetime anyhow), and it’s not because he’s a Fox guy. He will actually ask the hard questions, and no one gets a pass. Yes, other journalists do this at times, but Wallace never misses a beat. I’ve cringed many a time while watching him do away with the fluff and get down to the grit while remaining tactful and professional.
What in the world am I talking about? I’ll get to that.
Roger Clemens is a jerk, but it’s hard to get upset with anyone for ‘lying to Congress’
August 31st, 2010
Dan Calabrese
I have little use for Roger Clemens. It’s bad enough that he pitched for the Yankees and Red Sox, and tormented the Tigers in the process. If he also used performance-enhancing drugs, then as far as I’m concerned he can attempt to do what Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy to do.
But about this whole business of indicting him for “lying to Congress”: OK, I guess that’s a serious, serious crime because Congress is big and important and official and more highly esteemed than even the commissioner of baseball or something. So that’s why lying to Congress is right up there with failing to pay Social Security taxes on your nanny. It’s the kind of evil that sends chills down the spine!
Con a con man.
Or so the honorables would have us believe.
The first person I personally remember getting in trouble for lying to Congress was Oliver North, who had sold weapons to Iran behind Congress’s back and diverted the money into the hands of the anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua. This was in 1987, and the Democratic majority in those days was not unlike the one we have today, particularly in its disdain for any effort America might make on behalf of freedom around the globe.
The arms-to-Iran part I did not like. The money-to-the-Contras part was freaking awesome. And it was that second part that bothered the luminaries who dragged Ollie up to Capitol Hill, not so much because they gave a rip about him, but because they were hoping this was their chance to bring down the presidency of Ronald Reagan. When Ollie made them look like utter fools in his nationally televised testimony (this was before everything that ever happens anywhere was nationally televised; it was kind of a big deal), they retaliated by charging him with “lying to Congress.”
‘Courageousness’ and the crazed columnist
August 30th, 2010
Bob Maistros
OK, it’s time for me to rush (no, not Rush) back to the defense of the poor, abused English language once again.
My friends, last week I actually heard a White House spokesman (no, I don’t remember which one) stand before the press on TV and praise the “courageousness” of our servicemen and women.
Just take a match to it.
“Courageousness.”
I kid thee not.
When I was growing up, we used to have a perfectly good word for the quality the O-flack was hailing. We called it “courage.”
But then, “courageousness” falls neatly into the long list of made-up words I hear all the time.
Like “graciousness.” Which we used to call “grace.”
Hey Rush, Hannity: Stop bashing federal employees
August 30th, 2010
Gregory D. Lee
As a retired federal government employee, I’m offended when I hear Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and a host of other conservative talk show hosts bash all levels of government employees. It seems the all-time favorite government employee to bash works for the Department of Motor Vehicles.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, federal government employees in 2008 earn an average of $67,691 compared to $60,046 in the private sector. This doesn’t count the benefits all federal government employees enjoy.
Who do you think made this happen?
Not all federal government employees make as much as their private sector counterparts, but many do. For example, a registered nurse working for the Veterans Administration might make $74,460 compared to a nurse at a private hospital making $63,780. However, a federal government optometrist makes about $61,530 compared to an optometrist working in the private sectors who makes $106,665 salary.
What people like Limbaugh and Hannity probably don’t realize is that there are downsides to working for the federal government. Employees face severe restrictions and sanctions on many things everyone in the private sector take for granted. Congress alone determines federal employee salaries and benefits, not the marketplace. Employee organizations lobby Congress, but it’s unlawful for employees to strike if they don’t get what they want.
CEO is not in Obama’s DNA
August 29th, 2010
Herman Cain
While House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) urged President Obama last Tuesday to fire his economic team, a real CEO would have made that move months ago. A real CEO would have also developed and implemented a new strategy to stimulate the economy as soon as it became apparent that the old one was not working.
Even worse, the administration is in denial about the fact that its economic policies are not working. This is evidenced by Vice President Joe Biden’s spin tour trying to convince people that their policies are working using concocted measurements such as “jobs saved”, and the latest addition to their spin vocabulary – “lives touched”.
Meet the new boss.
I am one of many writers who warned that we could not spend our way to prosperity, but the administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the $862 billion non-stimulus bill anyway. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on members of Congress back during the August congressional recess to spend another $26 billion to help save some more union jobs.
President Obama is now floating the idea of spending another $30 billion to stimulate community bank lending to small businesses. Add this idea to the growing list of poorly executed and ineffective pop-tart programs such as cash for clunkers, cash for caulkers, cash for air (air conditioning system upgrade), and the Home Affordable Modification Program, and it’s no wonder the administration is making up new words to avoid talking about their failed programs and policies.
