Friday, July 30, 2010

Sherrod Story Still Smells

I missed the fun of the initial Shirley Sherrod brouhaha, but from a distance was curious to see the Obama administration so quick to remove Ms. Sherrod, and then reverse themselves when it was discovered that Ms. Sherrod only claimed that she used to hold a hatred for white people she didn't even know, but now has gotten quite over it.

The details are placed in perspective over at The DC Trawler where the very talented John Hayward of Doctor Zero fame fills in (thanks for the tip EP).

Of course her subsequent angry screed against Andrew Breitbart on Anderson Cooper 360 rather deflated her claims of maturity and new found tolerance.
Ms. Sherrod: 'I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he would like to see all black people end up again. And that’s why…'

Mr. Cooper: 'You think — you think he’s racist?!'

Ms. Sherrod: 'I think he’s so vicious. Yes, I do.'

Now comes the fleshing out of the background, with this excellent article over at The American Thinker
"More to the point, out of about $1 billion paid out so far in settlements, the largest amount has gone to the Sherrods' New Communities Incorporated, which received some $13 million. As Time Magazine approvingly reported this week, $330,000 was "awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone."

Unwittingly, Charles Sherrod shed light on the how and why of the settlement in a speech he gave in January 2010. As he explained, New Communities farmed its 6,000 acres successfully for seventeen years before running into five straight years of drought. Then, according to Sherrod, New Communities engaged in a three-year fight with the USDA to get the appropriate loans to deal with drought.

Said Sherrod, "They were saying that since we're a corporation, we're not an individual, we're not a farmer." Nevertheless, the Sherrods prevailed, but the late payments "caused us to lose this land." In other words, the bureaucratic delay over taxpayer-funded corporate welfare payments cost them their business.

Then, thanks to their "good lawyers," said a gleeful Sherrod, who seems to have fully recovered from his mental suffering, the Sherrods successfully sued the government for "a large sum of money -- a large sum of money." While saying this, he made hand gestures suggesting $15 million."

My word, the Sherrod's have been in the middle of a huge scheme of grafting money from the Federal government, and who do you think was in the midst of this money trough?
"Co-sponsoring the bill was none other than U.S. Senator Barack Obama. In February of 2010, the Obama administration settled with the aggrieved 70,000 for $1.25 billion"

My, oh my.

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Off For An Adventure

Well, boys and girls, I am off to take my youngest daughter on a little adventure. Please feel free to peruse the posts, or visit our many friends on the Fun Reads list.

I look forward to hearing from you all soon!

Take care.

- 'A River Runs Through It' Open Thread

    What did you think?

Join us for the rest of the shows at Movie Club.

Mitch Greenlick Gets Dream Candidate In Dr. Donald Berwick

Oregon House Health Care Committee chairman Mitch Greenlick has offered some ill considered opinions regarding healthcare, all of which I am sorry to say are in agreement with Barack Obama's recess appointment to head up the Medicare program. Dr. Donald Berwick is the presidents choice, but rather than go through a Senate confirmation process, he was appointed to the position and put in place while the Senate was at recess. Commemorating 60 years of England's National Health Service in July of 2008, Dr. Berwick gave broad praise to the institution, attributing to it virtue for being a means by which wealth is taken from one group of people and given to another:
“... sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker. And that any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must—must--redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.”

Yes, Dr. Berwick, what you are speaking of is called theft. I suppose you might prefer the term legalized theft, but it is all one. Theft may or may not be legal. However, it is always immoral. Furthermore, the common thief does not pat himself on the back for his stealing, whereas bureaucratic dolts do.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

With Deficit Ballooning, Republicans Take Novel Approach

With the President's Deficit Task Force recommendations pending and the President himself chaffing at the bit to stiffle the nation with suffocating tax increases, republican's on Capital Hill have proposed a novel idea: reduce spending
Republicans in the Senate are backing a plan to shave $20 billion from President Barack Obama's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The cuts amount to about a 2 percent trim from the $1.13 trillion requested by Obama for agency budgets annually funded by Congress. Senate Budget Committee Democrats have proposed a $4 billion cut.

Wow, that makes sense! Hey, why didn't the president think of that?
While small as a percentage of overall spending, the cuts represent an attempt by Republicans to respond to rising voter anger about spending and deficits.

And beat the president to the punch in his upcoming proposals to "be responsible", which will have nothing to do with decreasing his boondoggle spending schemes or more importantly growing the economy. In fact, Obama's upcoming taxing proposals will have everything to do with strangling out the people that make the country work, the nation's entrepreneurs and small businesses.


Obama Faces Growing Credibility Crisis:
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. “He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.”

Well, no. Not that he seems to care.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Racially Segregated Congressional Body Prepares To Disparage Constituents

Attempting to generate political momentum for its special interests and union activists, the racially segregated and liberal Congressional Black Caucus has taken upon themselves the task of preparing to accuse what it sees as its political opponents as ... guess what? ...


Now there is an original charge that cuts to the bone. What a surprise that a group of liberals who would not allow black members of Congress enter their ranks if they were 100% black but not 100% liberal think the best way to move their political agenda forward is to make up false charges against people they disagree with.
"We're deeply concerned about elements that are trying to move the country back, trying to reverse progress that we've made," NAACP spokeswoman Leila McDowell told ABC News. "We are asking that the law-abiding members of the Tea Party repudiate those racist elements, that they recognize the historic and present racist elements that are within the Tea Party movement."

Let us allow reason to prevail on your poorly bridled concern. If you have concerns about racist ideology and racially motivated animus, there is plenty to find among the New Black Panthers and others of their ilk.

These clowns from Congress have no qualms over race baiters like Jeremiah Wright and Jesse Jackson. They look the other way and have nary a peep to say while the New Black Panthers are out violating the Voter Rights Act and shouting about having to kill "some crackers" and "kill their babies". And yet the Congressional Black Caucus, with all their concerns over racial discord, say nothing.

They in block shoved their health care monstrosity down the throats of the innocent public, then passed parade like through a Tea Party gathering in Washington, baiting with cameras ready their hoped for racial moment. Well guess what? They didn't get it.

Why is that a surprise to them, and yet no surprise to me? They recorded that thing from multiple angles and with multiple individuals and what did they get? Not a thing. They just assumed somebody would call them a racial epitaph. Next time they'll have to plan better and get their plants into the crowd ahead of time.

This is not at all what Martin Luther King Junior had in mind when he invisioned a hoped for color blind society. All these people can see is color, and political power to be seized through it.



The St. Louis Tea Party movement has mounted a response:
In a matter of hours, the St. Louis group fired off to the NAACP the statement demanding the organization withdraw its "bigoted, false and inflammatory" resolution.

That's right after my own heart.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Controversial Justice Department Challenges Arizona

The US Justice Department, hot on the heels of lying to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding their pathetic performance in enforcing the Voter Rights Act have set themselves upon further roguish behavior by challenging the rights of the people of Arizona. The Justice Department claims the effort of Arizonans to address the Federal government's failure to protect the boarder in fact oversteps their bounds. Much to the surprise of Justice Department officials, their lawsuit against the people of Arizona has been met with disdain:
"Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state"

Okay, so eveyone figures the Federal government's acting like a bunch of dorks. Surely, after ice tea boycotts and a Obama lead media blitz condemning Arizona, surely they don't disagree with the challenge itself?
"Those who say the issue is Very Important to their vote are even more likely to oppose the government action. Seventy-two percent of those who rate the immigration issue Very Important to their vote disagree with the Justice Department challenge."

Menwhile, the people of Arizona have taken up their cause
"residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

'Sabrina' Open Thread

What did you think?

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Dr. Walter Byrd

Twenty one years ago, the Oregon Medical Association was in the throes of suffering a string of devastating losses. A number of physicians had taken their own lives after coming before the Oregon Medical Board for having issues with drug or alcohol use.

Professional licensing agencies like the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners operate in a protected fashion, with rather broad immunity from legal pushbacks. Operating under administrative law, the Board has wide latitude and no real check against the abuse of their far reaching power. It is a far cry from the criminal or civil justice systems that we are all more familiar with. The result is medical boards have little impetuous to curb the misuse of their powers. The combination can be devastating.

The doctors spoken of had witnessed their careers come to an abrupt end, their licenses suspended or revoked, with no clear means before them by which they could put their lives back together. The loss of their lives was wasteful, tragic and unnecessary. Their deaths posed a very great loss to our community, and made no sense in terms of providing care to patients. Their deaths were the result of hopelessness.

Alcoholism and drug addiction are life threatening diseases. However, their presence in one's life does not mean one's life is to be thrown away. Dr. Walter Byrd understood that.

Dr. Byrd was a urologist by training, and also liked to practice some general medicine, but in the early eighties he turned his focus to addiction medicine. He became a proponent for professionals from a variety of fields, including medicine, dentistry and the law. In the late eighties he was the driving force for the establishment of a program that would allow physicians who had come under the influence of drugs and alcohol to receive treatment, be monitored and move into recovery. The key aspect of the program was confidentiality, for with it people struggling could seek and receive help without placing their future in jeopardy. Through a cooperative effort from the Oregon Medical Association and the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners, his efforts culminated with the Oregon Legislature passing Senate Bill 1032, which in 1989 established the Oregon Health Professionals Program.

Physicians in recovery held Dr. Byrd in high esteem for his commitment, understanding, and his pervading hopefulness and belief that the lives of impaired physicians were worth saving.

Today is a different day. We have returned to a primitive environment. Ponderous slow thinkers like Mitch Greenlick of the Oregon Legislature, dreaming up ways in which the state can more tightly assert its control on the lives of individual citizens, took it upon themselves to tear down the means by which physicians had a chance at recovery. The Oregon Board of Medical Examiners also played a major role in this life wasting destruction.

Politicians love seen benefits. Most, however, have no notion of unseen costs. Mitch Greenlick is no exception. The result is the Oregon State legislature put an end to the OHPP program, and replaced it on July 1st, 2010 with a monitoring system run through the Department of Human Services. This program offers licensees no protection from a punitive and necessarily adversarial licensing Board, is by no means an avenue for physicians to seek help, and is in no way invested in recovery.

Dr. Walter Byrd lost his fight with cancer and left us in September of 2009. The recovery program he crafted was killed by the Oregon legislature a short ten months later. Both were of great service to our community.

They will be missed.

Voter Rights Act Undermined By Obama Justice Department

An ex-Justice official who quit over the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party has accused the Justice Department for which he had worked of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve white victims.
J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that "over and over and over again," the department showed "hostility" toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that -- he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his "blood boiled" when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn't solid.

"We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens," he later testified.

The Bush Justice Department was first to bring the case against three members of the New Black Panthers. The individuals were accused of violating the Voter Rights Act in a civil complaint. The Department of Justice initially won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court, but then the Obama Administration moved in to dismiss the charges, getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012. After 2012 of course all bets are off, but apparently weapons are not okay till then.

In a statement Tuesday, the Justice spokesman said the civil rights division determined "the facts and the law did not support pursuing claims". He went on to deny Adams' allegations of unequal enforcement of the law.

That spokesman seems to be out of tune with what has been transpiring in his department, as evidenced by the testimony Friday April 23rd hearing before the US Commision on Civil Rights:
Hill was called a “white devil” and a “cracker,” and was told he would be ruled by the black man the next day, and he would have to get used to “living under his boot.” Hill saw several voters, including two elderly women, stop abruptly as they were walking up to the polling place when they saw the two Panthers standing right in front of the door. The voters turned around and left; they said they would “come back later” to vote.

Bartle Bull — a well-known Democratic lawyer (and former publisher of The Village Voice), who worked in the South during the height of the civil-rights campaign — saw the same thing happen. He had also gotten a call about the intimidation and drove to the polling place. One of the Panthers pointed his billy club at Bull and said, “Now you are going to find out what it is to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was "no big deal".
"The department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved. We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation," the spokesman said.

Well, if that were true would not the world be a better place? Sadly, the video evidence shows that it took a police officer arriving at the scene to get the three individuals away from the entrance of the polling station. The three individuals were black. The people attempting to vote were white.

Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify before the commission. He eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts. Adams considered the case a clear example of voter intimidation. He said hearing Perez's dismissive description was a "very low moment".

The department's hostility toward this case and others involving black defendants has been described by Adams as being "pervasive." As one example, he cited another case where a black official in Mississippi was accused of trying to intimidate voters in 2007.

Adams stated the voter polling station intimidation that the New Black Panther Party had engaged in the November elections were the "same thing" they had done earlier in the Democrat primaries, where the effort was to suppress votes of supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

NASA Under Obama: Outreach Program For Disaffected Muslim Countries

I thought I had heard just about every crazy thing you could possibly hear on Obama's Willy Wonka ride through the tunnel of power, but no.

This just out:
“When I became the NASA administrator, [Obama] charged me with three things,” NASA head Charles Bolden said in a recent interview with the Middle Eastern news network al-Jazeera. “One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.”

Help them feel good. That's just perfect. President Obama brings in a new man to head up the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, and what does he lay down as the goals? Inspire children to do math, expand international relationships (that’s a nice warm and fuzzy) and find a way to dialogue with the Muslim world.

Michael Griffin, who served as NASA administrator during the latter half of the Bush administration, took issue with the Bolden statement, stating that while welcome, Muslim-nation cooperation is not vital for U.S. advancements in space exploration.
"There is no technology they have that we need," Griffin said.

The former administrator stressed that any criticism should be directed at Obama, not Bolden, since NASA merely carries out policy.

What do you think, in the face of being called on the sheer nonesense of using NASA as an outreach program, will the Obamonauts back away or double down?

The White House stood by Bolden on Tuesday. Spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a written statement to that Obama "wants NASA to engage with the world's best scientists and engineers as we work together to push the boundaries of exploration.

"Meeting that mandate requires NASA to partner with countries around the world like Russia and Japan, as well as collaboration with Israel and with many Muslim-majority countries. The space race began as a global competition, but, today, it is a global collaboration," he said.

Oh yeah, you knew it...double down baby! Maybe they could do team building exercises, repel off cliffs, climb rope bridges, that sort of thing.
"If by doing great things, people are inspired, well then that's wonderful," Griffin said. "If you get it in the wrong order ... it becomes an empty shell."

Griffin added: "That is exactly what is in danger of happening."

Now that sounds sensible. I guess that would disqualify him for a job on Team Obama.

Biden Unbelieveable

Crazy Joe is famous for saying some pretty unbelieveable whoppers, but his latest takes away the prize:
"Biden said after a three-day trip to Baghdad that the American people will see President Barack Obama’s Iraq policy as a success when the “combat mission” ends on schedule Aug. 31. Biden said the administration “will be able to point to it and say, ‘We told you what we’re going to do, and we did it.’

Three years ago Joe Biden and Barrack Obama were both adamant: the War in Iraq was lost, General Petraeus had not been forthcoming and the general's plans for a troop surge would not work. Now, three years later he wants to point to Iraq and say "We did that!"

Sorry Joe. That's not gonna fly.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

Schwarzenegger Discovers A Monkey In The Works

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's efforts to address the state's empty coffers has again been frustrated by (guess who?) Democrats in state government.

The state currently has a 19 Billion dollar deficit (that would be Billion, with a "B") which has yet to be addressed by the Democrat controlled state legislature. The Legislature's failure to act has left the state with a financial shortfall and without a spending plan as the new fiscal year begins. In response Schwarzenegger ordered the state workers' pay temporarily cut to the federal minimum wage as a stop gap measure, the back owed payments to be repaid once the state has funded its expenditures.

Governor Schwarzenegger's action was initially challenged in court. Just Friday, a state appellate court ruled in Schwarzenegger's favor, affirming the governor does have the power to make such changes in dealing with the state's budget woes. However, John Chiang, a Democrat elected in 2006 and the state controller who issues state paychecks, says he cannot comply. He cited the state's computer system as the reason, claiming the technological challenge of restating paychecks to the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour was just too difficult to tabulate, and asserted the computerized payroll system won't be able to be programmed for such a highly complicated calculation until October 2012. (!)

Mr. Chiang referred to a loophole in the courts ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeals, which said "unfeasibility" would excuse him from complying with Schwarzenegger's minimum wage order.

Let's see here. To comply Mr. Chaing would have to instruct the computer's writing paychecks to set reimbursement rates for all the states employees to $7.25 per hour, then cut checks accordingly.

I have to tell you, it is a rare day when we have government employees citing their own incompetence as a reason for their inability to effect change. I'm not even a computer guy, but I can tell you if all you have to do is reset the wage as $7.25 an hour for all employees that looks like a pretty simple task. Can't get it done until October of 2012? It's going to take Mr. Chiang twenty seven months to get it done? What's this clown thinking? Even if he wrote out all 200,000 checks by hand, it wouldn't take him two and a quarter years to do it. Sheesh, no wonder these guys are in trouble.

Okay Dr. Greenlick, here is your state controlled bureaucracy functioning at its finest.

Good grief.

Saturday, July 3, 2010

If Mitch Greenlick Can Be This Wrong On Rights, What Else Is He Wrong About?

Political positions in state government can have far reaching implications. Amongst statists, it is their well entrenched idea that the safety and well being among the nameless people of the state are best guaranteed by an intrusive state presence and its regulatory powers. That is how you get people like Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, whose background is in health system organizations, finding his way onto the chairmanship of the House Health Care Committee.

We recently noted Dr. Greenlick declaring:
"Rights come from wrongs"

Rights come from wrongs? Is he being flip here or does he actually believe this is an insightful comment? He followed that with his healthcare idea for the state of Oregon:
"it is the obligation of the state to ensure that every legal resident of Oregon has access to effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Dr. Greenlick is confusing rights with wishes. As Dr. Walter E. Williams points out
"True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another."

If Dr. Greenlick needs medical care, the onus is on himself to arrange for payment of those services. To use the power of the state to force his fellow citizens to pay for his care is for him to enslave those very same citizens. Dr. Williams continues:
"To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes."

Would Dr. Greenlick consider slavery a right? Professor Williams does not:
"Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation."

The state's funds are derived from the purses of the people. To claim that the state has an obligation to pay for someone's food or car or medical care is to put a claim on the funds of the people of the state, people that have worked for and earned the funds that Dr. Greenlick would claim by fiat.

This then is not an act of charity, it is an act of theft.

Friday, July 2, 2010

Mark Steyn Calls It Right On Ronald Reagan

Growing up in the late seventies and early eighties, my opinion of Ronald Reagan was largely informed on the basis of the media portrayal of him: a cowboy too ready to call draw to be safe with the nuclear trigger, a B Movie Actor who said his lines well and was able to surround himself with capable people. It turned out the informed opinion was utterly mis-informed.

'Dutch' had been an all American kind of boy, growing up in a poor rural household, playing sports and life-guarding in summers. He grew into an All-American kind of man, making his living as a radio sports announcer before his boyishly handsome good looks landed him in the movie picture industry. During the late fifties he took on a position doing a promotional program for GE, giving speeches and hosting the traveling program. It was here that he honed his natural ability to connect with an audience. On October 27th, 1964 he gave his "A Time For Choosing" speech in support of the Goldwater presidential bid. It was a bold, compelling, persuasive address, and launched Ronald Reagan's political career on the national stage.

The confusion that the media types foisted upon this country was nicely unmasked by Mark Steyn in his piece Dutch Courage.
"Edmund Morris has described his subject as an “airhead” and concluded that it’s “like dropping a pebble in a well and hearing no splash.” Morris may not have heard the splash, but he’s still all wet: the elites were stupid about Reagan in a way that only clever people can be."

Exactly right.

Happy Fourth, everyone!

Mitch Greenlick, Chairman of Oregon House Health Committee

Oregon State Representative Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, has attempted to make the provision of health care a right in the Oregon Constitution for more than five years. In this, his third legislative session in which he has introduced a proposal to make the state responsible to fund healthcare services to the uninsured, the resolution fell short of the number needed to pass. Greenlick said he will not try again. Let us hope we can take him at his word.

The measure called for amending the Oregon Constitution to declare:

"it is the obligation of the state to ensure that every legal resident of Oregon has access to effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Opponents said the measure would subject the state to an obligation it could not afford to deliver. Said Representative Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, the resolution was "a social experiment in constitutional socialism."

"Greenlick said he would be dead from lymphoma, now in remission, if he did not have access to affordable health care. That access should be a right, not a privilege, he said."

"Rights come from wrongs," he said. "What more egregious wrong can there be than depriving people the right to life simply because they do not have access to health care."

Rights come from wrongs? What kind of disturbance in one's thinking could result in such a non sequitur to be offered up as a proof?

Dr. Greenlick, this nation was founded on the principle that we as people are the possessors of rights that are inalienable. That is, the rights we are the possessors of cannot be transferred or given away. They are intrinsically ours as they come from God. We are not beholding to the state. When the state transgresses these rights it does wrong. An example of such a wrong would be your plan to take the funds from one person and give it for the benefit of another. This is called theft, and it is an immoral practice.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Obama Outreach To Republicans: Misrepresent, Pressure, Threaten

The Thugocracy continues as President Obama pushes forward with yet another effort to distort the republic and reshape it into the socialist utopia that is functional only in the minds of socialist ideologues. Their twisted notions about man and arrogant ideas about their ability to craft a better future could be characterized as an Axis I mental disorder akin to alcoholism or narcotic drug addiction.

In this instance our leader has decided to reach across the isle to his friends and fellow statesman on the right.
Hoping to breathe new life into the stalled immigration effort, President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the delay on recalcitrant Republicans whom he said had given in to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."

Do I have to respond to this? The most divisive, partisan politician in our lifetimes, the finger pointer in chief, the man who put the middle finger in finger pointing, Barrack Obama, claims that his world would be a bed of roses if not for those darn Republicans. Those very same Republicans whose minority positions in both houses of Congress made them subject to being steamrolled on the massive expansion of Federal spending, the take over of Chrysler and GM, the slush fund 'stimulus' bill, and the healthcare takeover? Yes, apparently that is the problem.

This is too rich.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Obama would get the bipartisan support he wants "if he would take amnesty off the table and make a real commitment to border and interior security."

Sounds pretty straightforward. No go with Mr. bi-guy?
"Our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols," Mr. Obama said. "It won't work."

And there you have it, from the man who brought you "Yes we can", a giant "No we can't", or "No you wont" anyway. Odd he doesn't see his own stiff necked insistence on ignoring the issues important to the right as playing a role in his inability to get their support. Perhaps it's not their support he seeks, but merely an issue to flog, a pose to make for the cameras, a finger to flip at his political enemies.

Obama Tells Nation Straighten Up

President Barrack Obama leans in to straighten the tie of Mort Zuckerman, former editor and current Chief Executive Officer of US News and World Report, who seems delighted for the uninvited intrusion into his personal space.

Obi isn't doing you any favors by leaning in to straighten your tie, Mort. He is displaying his sense of superiority.

Could I lean in and straighten the President's tie for him? No? Well then, keep your hands off.