Obama Admin’s Brennan: Criticizing Us Is Serving The Goals Of Al Queda

Brennan makes this statement in his whiny USA  Today op/ed in which he attempts to defend the indefensible regarding the Obama administrations’ handling of the Christmas Day Bomber and other counterterrorism policies.

In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan — Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism — responds to critics of the Obama administration’s counterterrorism policies by saying “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”

Brennan writes that, “Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill.”

In the oped, titled “‘We need no lectures’: Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad,” Brennan writes that politics “should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.”

The administration op-ed is in response to a USA Today editorial entitled “National security team fails to inspire confidence; Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour.”

Brennan provides a detailed defense of the administration’s handling of failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whom, he says, was “thoroughly interrogated and provided important information.”

He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.

The most important breakthrough in the interrogation occurred “after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s attorney general,” he writes, noting that failed shoe bomber Richard Reid “was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.”

Brennan said anyone who wants to change the policy would be casting aside lessons learned “in waging this war” on extremists.

So let me get this straight.  If we criticize Barry’s handling of terrorism we are helping Al Qaeda?  But I thought we have a right to question ”any adminstration”, no?  At least that’s what Shrillary told us back in 2003.

Brennan, Gibbs, Axelrod and Barry himself can try to spin this all they want, but it does not change the undisputed fact that Americans do not want terrorists to be granted Constitutional rights such as Miranda, do not want terrorists tried in civilian courts, do not want Gitmo closed and do not want their president to sit down and chat it up with heads of states that sponsor terror and want to wipe Israel off the map.  Just ask Senator* Scott Brown. 

*bolded for extra pleasure

Hey, Barry: Nobody Wants A National Nanny

It appears as though Obama’s constant lecturing of the American public is starting to take its toll.

Politico’s Carol E. Lee finds that Democrats see this as a dangerous habit that Barry must break.

He has advised parents to “replace that video game with a book and make sure that homework gets done.” He has urged members of Congress not to read blogs or watch 24-hour cable news. And he’s challenged lobbyists, lawmakers, bankers, journalists, insurance companies and other heads of state to do a better job.

He’s prodded people to get off the couch, eat healthier and exercise more. He’s even suggested Americans buy stocks, U.S.-made cars and energy-efficient light bulbs, while cautioning them not to max out their credit cards.

At times, having Obama in the Oval Office is like having a really powerful Dr. Phil around.

But lately, Obama’s tsk-tsking has gotten him into some trouble. At the very moment he’s trying to recover his declining popularity and revive his party heading into the November elections, even some Democrats worry that he risks coming off not as the inspirational figure who galvanized the electorate in 2008 but as the embodiment of a dour Democrat that turns off some voters.

Dee Dee Myers, a former White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, pointed out that, while Obama has long promised to tell people the truth even when it hurts, he needs to strike a balance.

“Part of what people liked about him during the campaign is that he talks to the American people like they’re grown-ups — you don’t have to pretend that you can eat ice cream and lose weight in order to be president,” Myers said. “He did that during the campaign by appealing to hope. … I think little of that has been lost.”

Added Democratic strategist Paul Begala, another Clinton veteran, “You got to be careful about that stuff, or you become a scold.”

Republicans are less forgiving.

And Republicans predictably roll their eyes at the steady flow of advice coming from the top of the country’s organizational chart.

“Nobody wants a national nanny,” said Republican strategist John Feehery. “It’s really annoying, and people don’t want to hear it.”

Rep. Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, thinks Obama has just taken a Democratic trait to a new level. “They want to tell you exactly how to eat, where to live, what light bulbs to purchase, what car to purchase, what house to purchase — down to the minute detail,” Price said.

But to some extent, it’s an approach that comes naturally to the former University of Chicago law professor, even if it might not always be effective. “The fatherly scold doesn’t work well, at least in part because he’s one of our youngest presidents,” said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution.Age hasn’t stopped the president, who, at 48, is at ease urging the Obama way — on a range of issues — onto those a lot more experienced than he is. He is at once Americans’ president and their additional dad, teacher, preacher, nutritionist, life coach and financial adviser.

Here’s the deal, Barry.  Shut up with your lectures, stop spending ours and our kids’ money on your progressive pet causes and political slush funds, let us keep more of what we earn, stay out of our way and keep us safe.  Now I’m no Harvard graduate, but it’s not rocket science.

Could Holder Be The Next Victim Of Barry’s Bus?

One can only HOPE.

Holder Under the Bus?

Aside from the sloppy legal work by Holder (including citing cases that have been since overturned by the Supreme Court), it is curious to see that the Obami are now retreating to the defense that “Bush did the same thing” (ignoring the instances in which Bush designated terrorists as enemy combatants). None of this seems to be working to shore up support for the criminal-justice model, which the Obami have insisted on employing, in part because the legal arguments are weak (e.g., disregarding the military-commission system, now in place to handle these cases) and in part because neither the public nor members of Obama’s own party think it makes sense to try KSM in a civilian court, Mirandize a terrorist, or ship Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. Joining the chorus of other mainstream critics of the Obama approach, Stuart Taylor calls Holder’s decisions to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber and to try KSM in a civilian court “two glaring mistakes” that require a serious course correction by Obama in his anti-terrorism policies.

In a piece in the New Yorker, which aptly describes the gathering storm of opposition, Holder doubles-down (”What we did is totally consistent with what has happened in every similar case”) and lashes out at former Vice President Dick Cheney (”On some level, and I’m not sure why, he lacks confidence in the American system of justice”). But Holder seems to be on thin ice and the White House might now view him as a liability. The New Yorker quotes a source close to the White House:

“The White House doesn’t trust his judgment, and doesn’t think he’s mindful enough of all the things he should be,” such as protecting the President from political fallout. “They think he wants to protect his own image, and to make himself untouchable politically, the way Reno did, by doing the righteous thing.”

Even more ominous for Holder: Rahm Emanuel is making it clear to all those concerned that he disagreed with a string of highly controversial and politically disastrous decisions by Holder. We learn: “Emanuel adamantly opposed a number of Holder’s decisions, including one that widened the scope of a special counsel who had begun investigating the C.I.A.’s interrogation program. Bush had appointed the special counsel, John Durham, to assess whether the C.I.A. had obstructed justice when it destroyed videotapes documenting waterboarding sessions.” And then there is the KSM trial:

At the White House, Emanuel, who is not a lawyer, opposed Holder’s position on the 9/11 cases. He argued that the Administration needed the support of key Republicans to help close Guantánamo, and that a fight over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could alienate them. “There was a lot of drama,” the informed source said. . . .  “Rahm felt very, very strongly that it was a mistake to prosecute the 9/11 people in the federal courts, and that it was picking an unnecessary fight with the military-commission people,” the informed source said. “Rahm had a good relationship with [Sen. Lindsay] Graham, and believed Graham when he said that if you don’t prosecute these people in military commissions I won’t support the closing of Guantánamo. . . . Rahm said, ‘If we don’t have Graham, we can’t close Guantánamo, and it’s on Eric!’ ”

When you lose Rahm, you’re as good as gone.  If Holder does join the ranks of other bus victims, imagine the confirmation hearings for his replacement? 

 

The Joke Is On You, Patches

The always classy Kennedy family runt joined the ranks of Democrat sore losers yeterday when he called Scott Brown’s “whole candicacy” a joke for daring to request that he be sworn in for the job he was elected to SIXTEEN days prior. 

Kennedy (D-R.I.) told The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room yesterday, “Brown’s whole candidacy was shown to be a joke today when he was sworn in early in order to cast his first vote as an objection to Obama’s appointment to the NLRB.”

“This is where he shows that when they need him, he’s in the tank for the Republicans,” Kennedy is quoted as saying.

Senator* Brown’s response was perfect.  (*bolded for extra pleasure)

“I was elected and the votes are certified and I’m here to do my job. It’s unfortunate that he would use mean-spirited comments like that at a time when we’re just trying to solve the problems of the Commonwealth,” Brown said today on his first full day on the job.

Patches should know a thing or two about jokes since he is usually the butt of them.  Just ask Marcia Coakley. 

When the Fredo of the Kennedy clan loses to John Laughlin in November he won’t be laughing.  But I will!

Finally. Senator Scott Brown (R) Massachusetts

Today marks the end of 57 years of Kennedy or Kennedy stooge rule for the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

If anyone wants to better understand why so many Massachusetts citizens are sick and tired of the Kennedys and the Democrat hacks on Beacon Hill and Capitol Hill, look no further than Massachusetts Secretary of State, Bill Galvin’s snotty lecture to Brown during the certification of his election this morning:

“I’d like to call on Senator Brown now to respect the rights of the majority,” Galvin said. “I hope that we will be able to see an up or down vote on all the nominations of President Obama and that the rights of the majority that are being respected here will be respected by the United States Senate and Senator Brown.”

Not to be outdone, I just saw Senator Liveshot Kerry whining for the cameras about Brown’s push to be sworn in today as opposed to next week, calling it insensitive. 

“Let me first thank Paul Kirk for his remarkable service. It’s rather unfortunate that with less than 24 hours’ notice, his entire office has to clear out,” Kerry said. “It might have been done a little more sensitively and thoughtfully. But I think (Kirk’s) service has really done Massachusetts proud, and we need to be very, very grateful to him for that.”

Kerry emphasized he did not begrudge Brown for deciding to come to the Senate early.

“There are votes coming up, and that’s how you measure what people are going to do around here,” he said. “I suppose he wants to be a part of those votes, and he has every right to be. I understand that. Everyone here will welcome Scott Brown with open arms. We want to work with him… All I’m saying is we had agreed, all of us, that we were swearing him in on the 11th of February. And everyone was working towards that date, including the people in Paul Kirk’s office. And then, in less than 24 hours, they’re told they’re out. That’s hard for people, that’s all.”

Boo freaking hoo.  You know what it is insensitive, John F-ing Kerry?  That you and your fellow Democrats on the Hill ignored the will of the people of Massachusetts and scheduled crucial votes after Brown was elected, allowing the unelected and illegitimate Kirk to be the 60th aye - once again giving us the middle finger.  Be prepared for us to continue to return the favor next November.

Best of luck, Senator Brown.  I know you will make us proud.

Buh Bye, Blanche

A PPP poll released today shows Blanche Lincoln getting pummeled by John Boozman 56-33.  The kicker?  Boozman hasn’t even officially entered the race.

John Boozman will enter the Arkansas Senate race this weekend as the frontrunner. He leads incumbent Blanche Lincoln by an amazing 56-33 margin in our first poll of the race. 

Lincoln’s approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her. She’s at a middling 51% even within her own party and just 17% of independents and 9% of Republicans are happy with how she’s doing.

What does the poll identify as the fulcrum of Lincoln’s precipitously declining numbers? You guessed it: Obamacare:

61% of voters in the state oppose the President’s plan, and among those folks Lincoln’s approval rating is just 8% with 79% of them expressing the belief that she’s too liberal. But she’s managed to antagonize a lot of the people who support the Democratic health care plan as well- 36% of them think she’s too conservative and her approval with them is just 57%. Barack Obama’s at 95% with that same group of voters.

Defy the will of the people and they will defy you.  It’s that simple.

Of course. Jailed Hack (D) and Tax Cheat Hack (D) Sponsor In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants Bill

It’s baaaack.  The hacks on Beacon Hill are once again trying to enact legislation which would provide in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.  The sponsor of the Senate version is none other than ex-State Senator, Anthony Gallucio of the famous Colgate Defense.  Gallucio is currently a guest of the Commonwealth – residing at the Billerica House of Corrections.  The sponsor of the House version is deadbeat tax cheat, Marie St. Fleur.

Howie Carr was on the case in his column yesterday:

Like a bad penny, the in-state-tuition-for-illegal-aliens bill is back, and who do you suppose is, or was, its lead sponsor in the Senate?

Sen. Anthony D. (for Drunkard) Galluccio. That’s right, the now ex-senator, formerly of Cambridge, now of Billerica, as in the Billerica House of Correction.

Do you suppose Jail-uccio ingested a bad ice cube, or at least some high-octane toothpaste, before he scrawled this legislation giving foreign freeloaders yet another handout?

Sadly, he was unable to testify in favor of his own bill because he’d already made his one phone call of the day.

Then there’s the companion bill in the House, H. 1175. Its lead sponsor is Rep. Marie St. Fleur (D-Dorchester). Remember her? She wanted to run statewide in 2006 until it was discovered that she had $40,000 in unpaid student loans, a $12,700 lien on her home for unpaid federal taxes, had failed to pay excise taxes in the city . . . shall I go on?

By its sponsors, ye shall know a bill.

More benefits for illegals.  Just what Massachusetts voters want to see in the middle of a recession with unemployment here at 9.1%.  Keep it up hacks.  November isn’t that far away.

An Honest Assessment Of Howard Zinn

As you probably know, Howard Zinn passed away last week.  I have been a fierce critic of Zinn for years and have watched in disgust as his book, A People’s History of the United States, has been integrated into high school history ciriculums across the country, helping him achieve icon status among the same clueless fools who walk around wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. 

David Horowitz doesn’t hold back in his assessment of Zinn and I say good for him.

Howard Zinn was a Stalinist in the years when the Marxist monster was slaughtering millions of innocent people and launching his own ‘final solution’ against the Jews. Put another way, Howard Zinn was helping Stalin to conduct those slaughters and to enslave  all those who had the misfortune to live behind the Iron Curtain.  Howard never had second thoughts about his commitment to leftwing totalitarians and never flagged in his political commitment to freedom’s enemies. In the years since Stalin’s death, Zinn supported every enemy of the United States in every war, and devoted his writing talents to every socialist tyrant including Mao Zedong who killed 70 million Chinese in peacetime because they got in the way of his progressive agendas.

When the Cold War was over and freedom had won — thanks to all the political forces and figures (e.g., Reagan and Thatcher) that Zinn opposed – Zinn continued his malignant course. He supported America’s enemies right to the end including the Islamic Nazis whose first agenda is to finish the job that Hitler started and then to impose a totalitarian theocracy on the infidel world.

Zinn’s wretched tract, A People’s History of the United States, is worthless as history, and it is a national tragedy that so many Americans have fallen under its spell. It is a political cartoon which even the socialist magazine Dissent described as an intellectual fraud, which it is. All Zinn’s writing was directed to one end: to indict his own country as an evil state and soften his countrymen up for the kill. Like his partner in crime, Noam Chomsky, Zinn’s life’s work was a pernicious influence on the young and ignorant, with destructive consequences for people everywhere.

Zinn’s death only strengthened my resolve to fight his repugnant view of this great country.

Where The Hell Is Secretary Napolitano?

That is the question that Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee were asking when she was a no-show for Wednesday’s hearing on the Christmas Day Bomber.  If they were ticked off off at the hearing, imagine their reaction when they saw her putting the nap in Napolitano at the State of the Union that very night?

Top Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee publicly scolded Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to show up at a Wednesday hearing where the committee examined the attempted Christmas Day suicide bombing of Northwest Flight 253. One Democrat on the committee said he wanted to know “where the hell” Napolitano was.

That evening, Napolitiano [sic] did prominently show up at the Capitol to attend President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. But earlier in the day, she dispatched Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Jane Holl Lute to testify on her behalf in the Homeland Security Committee on what went wrong in the homeland-security process that allowed would-be suicide-bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a plane bound from Amsterdam to the Detroit.

The committee has primary oversight over Napolitano’s department, and top Democrats on the panel made it clear they were angry that she failed to show up for such an important hearing.

She is Obama’s very own man-caused disaster.

Via Hot Air

The Associated Press (?!?!) Fact Checks Obama’s SOTU Claims

You know you’re in deep you-know-what when the Associated Press is calling you out on your lies.

A look at some of Obama’s claims and how they compare with the facts:

OBAMA: “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.”

THE FACTS: The anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit — and that’s if the president can persuade Congress to go along.

Obama is a convert to the cause of broad spending freezes. In the presidential campaign, he criticized Republican opponent John McCain for suggesting one. “The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel,” he said a month before the election. Now, Obama wants domestic spending held steady in most areas where the government can control year-to-year costs. The proposal is similar to McCain’s.

OBAMA: “I’ve called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. This can’t be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. Yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I will issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans.”

THE FACTS: Any commission that Obama creates would be a weak substitute for what he really wanted — a commission created by Congress that could force lawmakers to consider unpopular remedies to reduce the debt, including curbing politically sensitive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. That idea crashed in the Senate this week, defeated by equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. Any commission set up by Obama alone would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success.

Read on here

I had no idea the AP employed so many tea bagging racists.