Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

Obama has no desire for negotation in the budget debate, only capitulation by the House Republicans. In not so many words, blaming the House, he spells it all out as the Republican’s fault to government employees in this government-wide email:

Shutdown Message 1a

Shutdown Message 2a

PDF Version here: Message_from_the_President_to_U.S._Government_Employees

-

Interpreted/translated:

Lip service.

Big government is big.

…Congress has failed to meet its responsibility to pass a budget before the fiscal year that begins today.

I want you to know that I will keep working to get Congress to reopen the Government, restart vital services that the American people depend on, and allow public servants who have been sent home to return to work.  At my direction, your agencies should have reached out to you by now about what a shutdown means for you and your families.

It’s all Congress’s fault.  I will do everything good, they do everything bad.  The services shut down are all their fault.  I will protect you and your family.

Lip service lip service.

You do all this in a political climate that, too often in recent years, has treated you like a punching bag.  You have endured three years of a Federal pay freeze, harmful sequester cuts, and now, a shutdown of our Government.  …

None of this is fair to you.  …

Blame blame blame, you’re a victim of Congress.  Blame blame blame, sequester was mine and Jack Lew’s idea, but I’ll blame Congress again; shutdown is because I won’t negotiate and accept individual spending bills, but I’ll blame them.

Lip service lip service, big government good!  Lip service.

Quoting another president to seem non-partisan, setting up for the next “House Republicans are to blame”.

This shutdown was completely preventable.  It should not have happened.  And the House of Representatives can end it as soon as it follows the Senate’s lead, and funds your work in the United States Government without trying to attach highly controversial and partisan measures in the process.

It’s Congress’ and the Republicans’ fault.  Senate good, Congress bad.  It’s partisan to represent your constituents.  People who oppose any part of government oppose all of government.

Lip service.

And I will continue to do everything in my power to get the House of Representatives to allow the Government to reopen as quickly as possible, and make sure you receive the pay that you have earned.

Me I me I me I.  I will do this for you.  Trust in me.  Republicans in Congress did this to you, I will save you.

Lip service for your service.

One of the Obama administration’s talking points about Obamacare has been that Apple’s new iPhone 5000 or whatever has been having glitches, just like Obamacare.  Apple is the perfect company to the left, all artsy and creative (and in no way an evil big business… even though it’s among the largest in the world).  So Obamacare is just having glitches like new Apple products do, and you love Apple, don’t you?

Problem is, you don’t have to buy an iPhone or an iPad or iMat or iCarpet or whatever the latest iDohickey is.  And if you don’t buy the iThing, the IRS doesn’t confiscate your pay to tax you for the iThing that’s mandated by law for you to buy as a tax… even though it’s “insurance”… but it’s a tax.

Via Ed at HotAir, Nick Gillespie of Reasontv expounds on a few points:

Gillespie is a pretty libertarian guy, but he doesn’t give the importance to the first one that it deserves.

Obamacare is not voluntary.  If you don’t buy a government approved insurance plan, you will be fined.  One of the reasons that people’s insurance rates are going to be, and already are skyrocketing across the country is because the government mandates what plans are acceptable.

Obamacare makes it so you can’t just buy a health insurance plan for huge emergencies.  If you’re young and healthy, there’s no reason you need a “cadillac plan”.  You can get by with bare bones plans that are only there for critical emergencies like major injuries or critical illness.  You don’t need to go to the doc every day for aches and pains because you’re in your 20s and in good shape… but now, with Obamacare, you’re forced to buy the high-coverage plan because that way you’ll have “good coverage”.

-

The comparison has been made to car insurance before (it’s a totally wrong comparison in one sense, because many people don’t own cars, and if you don’t drive a car on public roads, you don’t need insurance and government can’t force you to buy it), but in this case, consider it the difference between liability and full coverage.

Before, you got liability insurance in case of a big accident, because it wasn’t critical because your car doesn’t need full coverage – it’s not high maintenance.  Like someone young who can bounce back, you can just pound the dent out of your cheap commuter car and it’s good as new.

Now you’re mandated to buy full expensive coverage because government is “helping” you get better coverage…. by mandating you pay for it.

-

To compare it to Apple, it would be as though the Obama administration had put out a new “Obamaphone Affordability Act” and simply done away with every brand but the iPhone 5000 or whatever the newest model is.  Sure, all you need is your Nokia or your Motorola Razor you’ve had for years, but now those phones’ plans have been discontinued, and you can either buy a new iPhone 5000 or comparable expensive phone… or you can get fined.

You lost the service you wanted, and you get told you’re being provided better service – all by killing the freedom to choose.

Drudge already made the comparison, as have several other people.  It’s immediate, and immediately understandable.

Obama will negotiate with Iran, but not with Republicans in congress.

Iran is funding terrorism, is a state sponsor of terrorism, and yet the Obama administration calls Republicans terrorists.

Republicans are pushing through bills that will fund all of government except Obamacare – a wholly transformative, unconstitutional mandate that demands that every living citizen pay a tax in order to exist, that changes the nature of the citizen to the government and ignores that the Constitution limits the government (something even ignored by SCOTUS).

For me personally, a government shutdown will be a huge hassle.  I’d very much like for the Democrats to do the jobs their offices demand and pass budgets that fund necessary functions of government.  Then they can bicker over Obamacare.  But since Democrats refuse to allow for passage of those bills as they’re about their agenda and single-payer socialism, and are instead saying “give us Obamacare or we’ll shut it all down and blame you”, I guess a government shutdown is the next best option.  I’ll take the hassle in my own life that comes with a government shutdown for the knowledge that a government health care system is being stopped.  And it can be stopped.

Anyone who’s dealt with government health care (I know people with broken bones that healed wrong while waiting on government paperwork, and had to be rebroken and set by private doctors because government-related injuries were never treated by government) knows it’s a pathetic system of rationing.  Without the ability to use personal resources to move things along, or to benefit from charity, or from experimental treatment, or even the basic efficiency of the private sector, it’s nothing but a failure all the way around.  But don’t take my word for it.

Here’s hoping the government is funded, but not Obamacare.  And if we can’t get that, here’s hoping for a shutdown until the Democrats finally listen to what the American people want… which isn’t a 22,000 page bill and regulations they read after they pass it.

red tape tower obamacare

Just a few gun news stories from the last few days.

A NJ gun buyback program kept those dangerous war relic rifles and “assault shotguns” off the street.

Authorities say a 2-day gun buyback program staged in central New Jersey last weekend netted 218 firearms.

Acting Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher Gramiccioni says the weapons collected at a church in Asbury Park and the Rumson police department included 126 handguns, 39 shotguns, and 24 rifles.

Among the assault weapons surrendered was a Colt AR-15, a Mossberg assault shotgun and a World War II-era Japanese bolt-action rifle.

126+39+24=189  What were the other 29 firearms?  Muskets?

I’m sure pulling an Arisaka out of grandpa’s closet and destroying it really made the world safer.  I wonder if there are any artifacts in museums they’d like to destroy, too?

And seriously, an “assault shotgun”?  Unless maybe it was the gimmicky, asinine Mossberg Chainsaw, which is assaults the eyes with ugliness and absurdity.

mossberg chainsaw

You never go full Mossberg.

-

Angela Giron, ousted Colorado Democrat, said she won.

The recall fight that my colleague, Colorado Senate President John Morse, and I lost demonstrated that no matter the cost of our political positions, common-sense gun-safety legislation is achievable. Colorado’s newest gun-safety laws have been in effect for months, and the recalls have no bearing on them. The legislation we helped pass proves that the gun lobby can be beaten.

She’s actually somewhat correct, in that she got her way.  She got greater government control, reduced citizen freedom, and she got to leave the lasting marks of tyranny in Colorado.  None of what she did was “common-sense” or “gun-safety”.  Remember, this is the same Colorado legislature that said women don’t know when they’re getting raped, and it’s better for them to get raped than defend themselves.

-

At the Navy Yard memorial, Obama had to go and push him some gun control.  It was basically the same song and dance we’ve heard from gun banners in the last couple years.  Katie Pavlich pointed out that everything Obama said was ludicrous:

Got that? If you don’t support new “common sense” gun control measures, you just don’t care about preventing mass shootings. And with all due respect, mass shootings are not the new normal and are not on the rise as President Obama would like the country to believe. Violence in the streets of Chicago between rival gangs is normal. Mass shootings, are not.

Let’s refresh what happened last week: Mad man Aaron Alexis, who was hearing aliens talk to him, purchased a shotgun legally at a Virginia gun store after passing two background checks. He carved cryptic sayings into the shotgun like “better off this way,” and “my elf gun.” He then illegally took that gun into Washington D.C., illegally brought it into the Navy Yard and committed mass murder. When it comes to more gun control, I’m not exactly sure what Obama is trying to get out here. Is he implying we should institute more restrictions on basic shotguns?

-

And finally, Larry Correia of Monster Hunter Nation utterly destroys some silly leftist’s gun control rant with devastating wit.  It’s a fun read:

Dear Gun Nuts

I’d say I qualify as a Gun Nut. My full weapons/tactics/legal resume is in the first link above.

So, a few things.

After the first time I shot a gun, I couldn’t hear anything for two days. This is because it was a .44 magnum and because I was eight and not wearing any ear protection.

Speaking as a retired firearms instructor, your father is an idiot.

It’s a huge gun—the kind Dirty Harry used—and my dad had to help me hold it as I pulled the trigger.

Dirty Harry would have slapped your dad upside the head for not giving you any ear plugs.

The next day, he had to explain to my third grade teacher why the only thing I could hear was a loud ringing.

If the explanation didn’t start out with “Because I’m an idiot— ” it was insufficient.

There are right ways and wrong ways to go about your gun-having. (And your son-having.) My dad did do a good job of teaching me about gun safety once I was able to hear him speak words again. He even went and bought ear protection.

Wow. He’s father of the year. And as we’ll see as Matt’s essay goes on, he didn’t do much to teach his kids critical thinking skills either.

 Growing up around guns made me feel comfortable with them. So, gun owners, I’m not against you.

He says before he goes into an article about how gun owners evil and stupid.

For a while, the 60 percent of Americans who don’t own personal firearms had a hard time figuring out how to communicate in the jargon of gun people.

You still can’t. When you people try to speak “gun culture” you sound like a white upper class suburbanite attempting hard core gangster rap. It is just pathetic and everyone is laughing at you. You learned your jargon from MSNBC or the New York Times, sources which are about as reliable and unbiased as Anthony Weiner’s Twitter feed.

But over the course of the last few dozen national conversations after mass shootings, we’ve all become armchair experts in arsenals.

Well, armchair expert. I’m an actual expert, which is why I can say with complete certainty that everything you go on to pontificate about in this letter is either flat out wrong or hyperbolically misleading.

It gets really good.  I recommend reading the whole thing.

A message from the White House Office of Obamacare Propaganda To Get Young People To Love Us And Sign Up Like Lemmings.

-

I think Sebelius runs it now.

-

Update:  Joking aside, there are triple premiums coming your way.

Andy and Amy Mangione of Louisville, Ky. and their two boys are just the kind of people who should be helped by ObamaCare. But they recently got a nasty surprise in the mail.

“When I saw the letter when I came home from work,” Andy said, describing the large red wording on the envelope from his insurance carrier, “(it said) ‘your action required, benefit changes, act now.’ Of course I opened it immediately.”

It had stunning news. Insurance for the Mangiones and their two boys,which they bought on the individual market, was going to almost triple in 2014 — from $333 a month to $965.

The insurance carrier made it clear the increase was in order to be compliant with the new health care law.

I started this as a minor post a few days back, but in the span of a few days, the story has changed.

First Putin called Obama out:

“I would like to address Obama as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate: Before using force in Syria, it would be good to think about future casualties,” Putin told Russian news agencies in Vladivostok during a tour of the country’s flood-stricken Far East.  …

Putin said he was sure the attack was the work of rebels trying to provoke international — and especially American — involvement in the Syrian conflict. The government of Bashar al-Assad, he said, would have had no reason to use chemical weapons at a time when it had gained the upper hand in the fighting.

Doing so, he said, would have been “utter nonsense’’ – with the clear implication that that is how he would characterize the American allegations.

On top of that, he said, the Obama administration’s “claims that proof exists, but is classified and cannot be presented to anybody, are below criticism. This is plain disrespect for their partners.”

Putin’s comments were soon underlined by a stern statement from the Foreign Ministry. After U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul had finished a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov on Saturday, the ministry declared, “Russia has expressed its conviction that any forceful action against Syria that the U.S. could carry out in circumvention of the U.N. Security Council would be an act of aggression and a gross violation of international law.”

Pretty harsh, and some biting digs there at Obama, using Obama’s own words and line of attack against Bush against him.  Putin even used Obama’s own hatred of American exceptionalism against him in his NYT op-ed:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.

Remember that Obama has the same opinion that Putin states there.

-

Mark Steyn summed up the accidental war brewing here:

(the US)… is going to war because Obama wandered off prompter and accidentally made a threat. So he has to make good on it, or America will lose its credibility. But he only wants to make good on it in a perfunctory and ineffectual way. So America will lose its credibility anyway.

While he was expecting a military response in the bare minimum as the quote by an unnamed official went: “just muscular enough not to get mocked”, what’s happened was an even weaker response – empty posturing and nothingness.

The president has backed away from a military strike in Syria. But he can’t acknowledge this or act as if it is true. He is acting and talking as if he’s coolly, analytically, even warily contemplating the Russian proposal and the Syrian response. The proposal, he must know, is absurd. Bashar Assad isn’t going to give up all his hidden weapons in wartime, in the middle of a conflict so bitter and severe that his forces this morning reportedly bombed parts of Damascus, the city in which he lives. In such conditions his weapons could not be fully accounted for, packed up, transported or relinquished, even if he wanted to. But it will take time—weeks, months—for the absurdity to become obvious. And it is time the president wants. Because with time, with a series of statements, negotiations, ultimatums, promises and proposals, the Syria crisis can pass. It can dissipate into the air, like gas.

The president will keep the possibility of force on the table, but really he’s lunging for a lifeline he was lucky to be thrown.  …

All this, if it is roughly correct, is going to make the president’s speech tonight quite remarkable. It will be a White House address in which a president argues for an endeavor he is abandoning. It will be a president appealing for public support for an action he intends not to take.

And that’s exactly what the speech was.

What happened was Vladimir Putin proved, as has been stated across a million blogs and talk radio shows now, that the Russians are playing chess, while Obama is playing tiddly winks.  Maybe we should’ve expected that.

putin vs obamaPutin won.

Lee Smith at Weekly Standard makes the case solidly.

The Syrian government has accepted the proposal because they understand it is an empty formalism.  As everyone knows, as even all but the most obtuse White House officials must also understand, Assad will not give up his unconventional arsenal because he cannot.  …  …. plan B is to withdraw from Damascus and head to the coastal mountains that make up the historical Alawite homeland. The question for Assad then is, how to ensure the safety of that retreat? Further, once there how are the Alawites to defend their redoubt from a Sunni community galvanized by a shared vendetta against Assad and his community? From Assad’s perspective, without chemical weapons the Alawites might fall off the face of the earth.

Who knows what the Russians told Assad? For God’s sake, just say it’s your chemical weapons arsenal you’re turning over for safekeeping. Send them canisters of perfume, or cat urine. The Americans just want a deal, the president thinks he’s saving face. If the Americans are smart, they’ll let the whole thing drop and call it a win, but knowing them they’ll come back later and complain that you’re not keeping your end of the bargain. No problem. We’ll stall them. And then every time Obama whines it will remind your adversaries and U.S. allies around the world that the Americans are empty suits, a bunch of legalistic bureaucrats who are incapable of standing with their friends.

But Putin showed shrewdness and defeated Obama handily by appealing to Obama’s weakness.  He can’t let himself look bad.  The only “credibility” question was a corner Obama painted himself into that he expected to paint his way out of at the cost of US military power, Syrian lives, and a war that would escalate.

The president’s supporters and publicists in the press know how to package Obama’s weakness. The fear that everyone else in the world smells emanating from him like a wounded animal is really just humility and modesty—fitting attributes for the leader of a superpower that needs to make amends for having meddled so long in the affairs of others. And besides, this talk of strength and weakness is juvenile—the world is not a schoolyard. And so Obama ignored Putin’s slights and held his head high. This revealed to Putin Obama’s real liability, his vanity. Obama always needs to look good. He will embrace defeat so long as he can still imagine himself a handsome princeling. After pushing Obama around for five years, now Putin escorts him out of the Middle East. Here, friend, take my hand. Let me help you to the sidelines.

As David Samuels wrote last week, Putin’s goal is to replace the United States as the regional power broker. Sure, Russia is less a state than a criminal enterprise with lots of energy to sell, while the United States drives the global economy, but so what? What good are American aircraft carriers if you don’t have the will to use them? Putin will use anything he has to win, while Obama is looking for a reason not to fire a few cruise missiles into the Syrian desert. There is absolutely no chance Obama would risk a shooting war with Iran.

Part of the reason for a Western European demand for action is because Russian Gazprom controls the heat in Europe in the winter, and a pipeline through Syria could be built if the Assad regime (backed by Russia) goes away.  Russian Gazprom wouldn’t be controlling Europe’s thermostat, and with it would go a lot of economic and political power.  So losing Syria would could also harm Russian interests in the future.

And the reason Britain might’ve been interested in getting into Syria?  Britain sent Syria a lot of components for chemical weapons, and they may want to go clean up the mess they helped make.

The Russian proposal not only saves Obama from having to do something about Syria, it also, and much more important, shows the way forward with Iran. From the White House’s point of view, its credible threat of force made Syria buckle and will similarly bring Iran to the negotiating table. Putin has shown his bona fides as a credible interlocutor with Damascus and will do the same with Iran. Obama can relax now and imagine that he has finally earned his Nobel Peace Prize and that that sound he hears is the tide of war receding.

In fact, it is the sound of American allies around the world—the Poles and Czechs, the Japanese and the South Koreans, the Saudis, Jordanians and Israelis, among others—gnashing their teeth. They now see that they are on their own, and that  the word of the United States means nothing.

There’s all that talk of credibility, and all it proves is that Obama won’t stand up to anyone on the global stage except US allies.  It’s marvelously consistent with Dinesh D’souza’s theory that Obama’s anti-colonialist roots drive him to harm the US and its allies at every turn and weaken the power of both.

The only thing credible was Obama’s threat to take unilateral military action over the orders of Congress and his triangulating to blame Congress for failure if he went to war or if he didn’t.

Putin just gave him a more convenient exit, and took another step towards his own expansion of power, and at American expense.

putin glasses flag

John Kerry says Obama can attack Syria with or without congressional approval, and may do so anyway:

“Now. I can’t tell you what judgment the president will make if, in three weeks, Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. But the president reserves the right in the presidency to respond as appropriate to protect the security of our nation.”

Syria has less to do with our security than Iraq or Afghanistan by a long shot, and the rebels in Syria are Al Qaeda, our enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last few decades.  So there is no case for this, but Obama might attack anyway, even if congress says no, because screw you.

Meanwhile, VP Joe said this:

As soon as Obama decided not to decide on Syria and passed the buck to congress, anyone looking at it could see he’d play politics with it and use congress as his scapegoat.  If congress said no and he chose not to go to Syria, he could blame congress for Assad’s use of chemical weapons.  If congress said no and it was a wise choice, he’d pat himself on the back for staying out.  If congress said yes and the war went well, he could claim credit.  If congress said yes and the war went sour, he could blame congress.

Obama has chosen to completely and 100% pass the buck in order to shift blame.

Now he’s even blaming others for his own red lines:

“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”

Obama set a red line a year ago.  Now he’s saying he didn’t, the world did.  Now he’s saying it’s not his credibility, it’s everybody else’s – everybody else who he can blame.

And he’ll blame everyone:

My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line and America and Congress’s credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

“Norms?”

norm cheersAnd he blames the world:

So, the question is, how credible is the international community when it says this is an international norm that has to be observed.

“International norms?”  When the hell do we go to war for “international norms?”  Are we the conformity police now?  This is a very thin veneer of an excuse for war.

The question is how credible is Congress when it passes a treaty saying we have to forbid the use of chemical weapons.

So what?  Syria isn’t a signatory.

If you want to lean on them with sanctions, great.  But military actions against them for breaking a treaty they’re not party to is like going into your neighbor’s house and spanking your neighbor’s kid for not cleaning his room.  Make all the arguments about the greater good that you want, it’s really not your place, no matter what the neighborhood “norms” are.

That is progressivism at it’s core, though.  Woodrow Wilson’s desire to get involved in the Great War, and Teddy Roosevelt’s desire to get involved in all sorts of noble little wars – we belonged in none of them but there was always some great moral argument for going to war – to save Europe from the Hun or to avenge the Lusitania or the Maine.

If we’re going to be the world’s policeman, we’re two years late to the hundred-thousand conventional deaths in Syria, and we were smuggling anti-air missiles to Al Qaeda in Syria (which is why Ambassador Chris Stevens was out in Benghazi and not in Tripoli).  But this isn’t about being the world’s policeman or the role that would entail, this is about the president covering his ass, using classic progressive rhetoric to say “We must act!  Now now now!  Action!  The time for talk is over!  We must act!” and force congress into a decision that gives him a scapegoat.

Obama and his willing media sycophants are phenomenal liars.  They can convince people that their own words don’t mean what they say, that a war isn’t a war, and that Obama didn’t say what he said, that nations that don’t sign treaties must have military force used on them to enforce “norms”, that 1000 nerve gas deaths are worse than 100,000 conventional deaths, and that congress is to blame no matter what goes wrong.

It really is masterful propaganda.

-

One last bit here, from Real Clear Politics:

First of all, I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous thing that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for. And so, when I said, in a press conference, that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There was a reason for it. That’s point number one. Point number two, my credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.

Again, Syria isn’t a signatory to chemical weapons treaties.  But the Syria Accountability Act is rather interesting, since it was passed in 2003, and that means Obama’s been ignoring it since 2008, and his party was ignoring it when Kerry and Pelosi were busy sitting down to dinner with Assad.  It also only applies to international terrorism, not a civil war, and nowhere in the bill is there a provision for military strikes, only sanctions.

-

This is one of the letters they’re referencing:

IRS dem senator letter 1IRS dem senator letter 2IRS dem senator letter 3

For those who missed it, a couple days ago at the Missouri state fair, a rodeo clown participated in some antics that offended the left horribly.  He dressed up in an Obama mask and made jokes that you can only make about every other president.

So now he’s banned for life from the MIssouri state fair.

And now rodeo clowns will have to take sensitivity training.

The fallout from a Missouri rodeo clown’s mockery of President Obama continued as the Missouri State Fair said it will force all clowns to undergo sensitivity training and the head of the state rodeo-clown organization resigned.

The state fair commission voted Monday to ratify its decision to ban for life the clown in question who wore an Obama mask. The rodeo announcer and a second clown wearing a microphone asked whether the crowd wanted to see him get run down by a bull.

Byron York at Washington Examiner (who’s been wrong in the past, but not this time) points out that this isn’t the first time a president’s been made fun of, and that there are two different reactions of outrageous outrage.

The controversy over the incident seemed to have two parts. One was outrage in some quarters over the obvious disrespect and ridicule directed at the president. The other was outrage over the suggestion of violence toward Obama — in the form of an encounter with the bull — that was the premise of the act.

Thing is, this was just making fun of the president.  That’s all.  The left doesn’t like being made fun of.  Remember how they responded to this clown face with cries of racism?

>Prez's Allies Take A Page From... The Joker?Thing is, it’s just mocking Obama.  It’s not violent.  It’s just mocking.

Ultimately, it’s free speech.  Doesn’t mean everyone has to like it.

As far as accusations of violence, there’ve been far worse offenders that have been given passes:

As far as the use of violent imagery and the president is concerned, the Bush years saw imagery much more serious than a bump from a bull. For example, the 2006 film “Death of a President” was a faux-documentary that told the story of a fictional Bush assassination, including a graphic depiction of the Bush character being shot in the chest. After its premiere at the Toronto film festival, where it won the International Critics Prize, “Death of a President” was handled by a major American distributor, Newmarket Films, and was reviewed, seriously and on its own terms, by the Washington Post, New York Times and other major press outlets. The film’s makers were not banned for life from the movie industry or anything else; the director has since made several films that have shown at festivals around the world and is now working on a documentary on David Bowie.

Zombietime has a great roundup here of actual death threats and violence, for those who’ve forgotten.  Like this one, from an Obama campaign rally in 2008 in Denver, CO:

BushWhackerElMarco bush guillotine obama campaign rally denver oct 26 2008

Or this in San Fran in 2004 after the election:

bush in effigy nov 3 2004 zombietime san fran election rally

There’s a pretty big difference.

-

I’ll add also that rodeo clowns do a job that most folks don’t.  When you spend your time fighting 2000 pound animals with horns to keep cowboys from getting crushed into the dirt, you don’t really care about what somebody on MSNBC or DailyKos is going to say about a joke that your audience enjoys.  Well, except for those who’ve been trained to be so sensitive they don’t understand it’s just a joke.

-

HotAir’s quotes of the day today are all clown-related.

-

If the left wanted to get really mad, they’d probably get mad at GWAR.

But the thing is, it’s poking fun at someone in GWAR’s style.  Which they’ve done over and over again.  It’s not a call for violence, it’s a style of mocking humor.

-

GWAR also does a badass version of Kansas’ Wayward Son.