Handy Resources New!

The Desktop Dyno

Salem Gravity Gran Prix

Jordan's Eagle Project.

Duke Boys Car Chase

LoL Cartoons

Logic Primer

Gymkhana Practice

Compass Course Spreadsheet

Complete Orienteering Course Files Updated!

Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe

Chris Matthews says Romney supporters are filled with racial hatred.

Wow. Who saw that one coming . . . ?

This is a little bizarre. CBS affiliates ran scrolling tickers saying that Obama won the election. Apparentlythey were just testing the system and it wasn't supposed to air (obviously).

Townhall has this pretty good article about Obama's Apology Tour.

Here is Romney calling Obama on it.

And here is a compilation of The Amateur's apologies.

Oh, but Fact Check: Andrea Mitchell said that Obama never used the word "apology," so Romney was wrong and Obama was right.

Was there ever a time we took these idiots seriously?

Back in high school we used to hold mock debates. Each side would randomly be assigned to support a position. The winner was the one who best presented his case—likely as not defending a position he didn't espouse—based solely on the merit of the argument with no regard to the merit of the content. If you presented the idea that eating raw kittens was good for society better than the guy who got assigned to oppose eating raw kittens, you won.

If I were a high school debate judge I'd have to say Obama won the debate last night.

Obama has the astonishing ability to choose wrong on foreign policy. Every. Single. Time. It's just uncanny the way that, given any number of choices, Obama will inevitably choose the wrong one. (See 'Colonel Klink.') Iran? Surge? Iraq? Israel? Mubarak? Khadafy?

Wrong. Wrong, wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

But nobody was watching then. Monday night when people turned on the TV to watch the latest episode of Some Stupid People Living Together with a Laugh Track, they found themselves watching a debate instead.

For ninety minutes Obama (mostly) gracefully crafted sentences for those who haven't been paying attention for the last four years. Every sentence was either a misrepresentation or an outright lie. But the crowd that hasn't been watching came away with "Obama has a clear foreign policy, he's the best foreign policy President ever—he said so himself!"

So every single cotton-picking thing he said was wrong , but he won the 'debate.' Woo-hoo! If only that could erase four years of losing America.

Barely won, as it happened. I almost outright disqualified him for his "Oh, yeah? Well your mother's a poopy caca, you stinky doo-doo!" childishness.

I guess it's hard to hide who you really are.

A debate is a show. It's not that much different from the sitcom that it displaced. Governing is real. Obama sucks at governing. It's just a fact. It's not something he's cut out to do. But he is great at what he does—put on a show.

Obama is nothing but a celebrity; he's a fake. He excels at being a fake. That's what he did last night, exactly what the actors on the displaced sitcom would have done. Pretended to be something he's not.

He's not a President, but he does play one on TV.

You know how this works. You believe what you hear first. The 7.8% unemployment number was in headline type the size of the Pearl Harbor attack. But when they "adjust" the numbers and it turns out it actually went up over that period, that will be reported on the lower left hand corner of page 17 under the Viagra ad. Clinton was great at this propaganda technique.

So when Obama (rudely) yells "You're wrong, Governor!" and Romney says "Well, we'll check the record," Obama knows that the morons he's catering to won't ever check the record. They'll never bother to find out that he was lying. They heard him say Romney was wrong—in their tiny brains that's now the truth.

You know how this works. Democrats are evil. Evil people will always accuse you of what they're guilty of.

Did you include "I got bin Laden!" in your drinking game last night?

I was intrigued that Obama had to mention—without any context whatsoever—that you take out bad guys without poll-testing to see how it plays.

The sitcom watchers said "Yep, yep, sounds good to me. Now, that there's a leader, tell ya' what."

Those who had been paying attention said "Did he seriously say that? Did he really, honestly, seriously just expose that unpainted numbered square to every serious art collector in the audience?"

You're not a sitcom zombie. You know how that went down, that for weeks the military was saying "We have bin Laden, we have to take him out!" and Obama was saying "Oh . . . I don't know. . . I'm not sure, we need to find out how it will play with those in my base who I've convinced that I'm a pacifist."

Look it up.

You know he's going to brag about it; you can bet your pension on that. But to slip up like that . . .

I guess that's why they call him The Amateur.

In the last debate Obama lied and misled about drilling leases. He dodged questions about guns. He lied about Romney's economic plan. He lied about Romney's position on illegal immigration. Obama lied about his characterization of the Libya attack, the moderator came to his defense, she turned out to be as wrong as Obama. Then Obama expressed faux offense that someone could possibly characterize his misleading and corruption and playing politics as playing politics.

The Middle East is on fire. The corrupt administration is spending all its energy covering up its incompetence. The country's economy is in the toilet from the same incompetence. But the liberals took this away from the debate: "Did you hear Romney say 'binders full of women'?"

Some of these are pretty funny . . .

Just check them out.

'Cause you still didn't go to townhall.com and check them out for yourself, did you?

So the day after you did actually use the phrase "acts of terror" in roughly the same area code as the Benghazi attack. But what did you say for the next fourteen days?

Well, even the class dunce can be taught something. The Amateur administration immediately called the latest bombing a terrorist attack.

Barack Obama doesn't point fingers. This according to a woman who spent her adult life being ashamed of her country.

Just in case you've been in a coma for the last four years, here's a list of Obama's Top 25 Excuses for his failures.

Not only does Elizabeth Warren have exactly zero percent Indian heritage, it turns out her white great grandfather shot an Indian.

I haven't seen this anywhere and haven't been able to identify how widespread this is, but someone I know went to apply for Unemployment compensation the first week of October and was told they couldn't. The deadline had been extended one week for the fourth Quarter. So . . . if you were compiling new unemployment claim data, wouldn't dropping one week's worth of new claims significantly change that?

Here's an interesting article about the general concept, not that particular trick asking Would team Obama manipulate the data?

Would they? Would they stoop to that after . . .

• Leaking classified national security information for political advantage
• Lying about the Ambassador Stevens' assassination
• Ordering defense contractors to delay announcing layoffs until after the election.

And the list goes on.

While you are there follow the link to the next page that's more in-depth but less entertaining.

And here are Obama's lies from Townhall debate.

An and interesting list of seven lies Obama has told.

Or you might prefer four years of lies in one video:

He really does in this piece. It's not a resounding endorsement, but it is an endorsement. And he slams Obama (I said that to get on his list of people who misrepresent his words, but he does) so that's good.

Let's say a CEO does a great job for stockholders; he increases profits five-fold, treats the employees well, and causes the stock price to skyrocket. He's a superstar. One day the public learns that the CEO killed a guy to get ahead in his career, but the CEO doesn't get convicted because his clever attorney gets him off on a technicality. Assume in this hypothetical situation that the public correctly believes the CEO killed a guy to advance his career. Should the board of directors allow the superstar CEO to keep his job? Or is killing a guy to advance your career always a firing offense?

Okay, keep your answer in mind.

The next question is for supporters of President Obama. Let's say your political views map closely to the President's positions. He's your guy. But suppose you found out he once killed an American citizen in the United States to help his reelection. And assume, as with the CEO example, that the facts of the killing are undisputed and the President found a legal means to avoid prosecution. In that hypothetical case, would you still vote for President Obama? Or would you say it is a firing offense for a President to kill a citizen to advance his career?

I predict that every one of you favored firing the hypothetical CEO for killing a guy to get ahead. My second prediction is that every Republican reader of this blog favored firing President Obama in the hypothetical and imaginary case of him murdering a citizen to get elected. My third prediction is that supporters of President Obama will quibble with the hypothetical example, or my comparison to the CEO, or say President Obama is still a better option than Romney. In other words, for most supporters of President Obama, I don't think there is such a thing as a "firing offense." (italics added)

The article goes on. Click on the link to read it. especially read the updates at the bottom, like:

[Update: Congratulations to Politico for being the first to take this post out of context. I'm a little disappointed in Jezebel, Gawker and Salon for being slow to the party. Are all of their context-removers on vacation or something?]

Here's my frank (uh . . . so to speak) belief: Over the past four years, especially in the last six weeks, Barack Obama has very clearly demonstrated that he does not have the temperament, experience, judgment, ideology, or skills to be President. Very clearly. Therefore, I have the firmly held belief that if you are still planning to vote for Obama, you are doing it for a very different reason than that you believe he is the best man for the job. He clearly isn't.

Now, if you do plan to vote for the man, I just questioned your motives. You're going to get your back all up. That's the wrong way to look at it.

You should look at it that as me paying you a compliment. For me to say that you examined the clear facts and came up with the wrong answer is me saying you're stupid; so I'm giving you an out. I'm trying to explain how you—an intelligent, rational person—could possibly vote for a man who is obviously not the right man to vote for.

Honestly, I truly believe that the number one reason a person would vote for Obama is because that person harbors a deep-seated suspicion that he might be racist. He can accomplish with the flip of a lever what should take deep introspection.

The second is like unto it—to prove how cool you are for voting for the black guy, even though you might not be racist.

Third, you just vote for the democrat or you've been convinced that Republicans are evil..

Fourth, you are a good-hearted person but deceived and have bought into the BS of the welfare state and the other lies democrats tell.

So, yeah, I guess you're stupid if you vote for him for any of those reasons, too. So never mind.

My kids had some interesting takes on the debate. Right when Obama was talking about what a great President his BFF George W. Bush had been (I told you—you can't make up the kind of insanity that infects the liberal mind) and Romney could never hope to fill Bush's shoes, my son observed that they seemed like a divorced couple fighting over every stupid little thing.

When Obama was explaining that he would not rest until he found who was responsible for killing our ambassador (his search for the "real killer") my son said "Maybe Beyonce knows! Or the girls on The View or Letterman!"

I loved how Obama snarked that "Governor Romney is comfortable with politicians in Washington deciding health care policy." Uh . . . seriously? Isn't that the definistion of Obamacare?

If you were playing the drinking game you were smashed on "I inherited this," "I personally knew the ambassador," and "Hey, have I told you about my grandmother?"

Then . . . holy freaking glass houses, Batman . . . Obama was talking about Romney's reaction to Obama getting the ambassador murdered and said "That is not how a Commander in Chief acts!"

Yeah, a Commander in Chief runs to a fund raiser in Vegas, refuses to meet with world leaders or his national security advisors, and goes partying with gossipy bitches on TV shows and sycophantic late night hosts. I'm really glad Romney kicked him in the nuts over that one.

Here's an idea: Maybe next time terrorists attack us maybe you can play President and phone it in to The View and Letterman . . . you know, since you're of the opinion that a phone call is just as good as meeting in person.

My sister thought it was funny that Obama claimed to cure an Aurora shooting victim with his prayer. Hey, that's much more plausible than seeing racism when someone talks about his sons! Then she said that maybe his grandmother cured the victim, but never got credit 'cause she's a woman.

When my head was about to explode she said "Aaah, it's just a country."

Then I liked how Obama played IT Support, telling the guy he was wrong and his life was just fine, instead of how he was going to fix his problem.

Then, and I saved the most salient point for last, there was that soon-to-be-famous false fact check with Candy Crowley (sp? Don't know, don't care) spouting off that no, Obama is right, Romney is wrong . . . and turns out both Obama and his moderator ally were wrong. Read the transcript. If you get it I don't have to explain it; if you don't there is no hope for you.

Obama did not say in the Rose Garden that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Wait, wait, I know, I hear the liberals screaming "He said we wouldn't let acts of terror shake our resolve!" That could possibly be construed as acknowledging that it was a terrorist attack . . . were it not for the fact that for the next two weeks he vigorously denied that it was in every venue he could, including in front of the UN and sending his minions on the Sunday shows. Even after that miserable little prick Jay Carney acknowledged that the White House knew for a fact it was an orchestrated terrorist attack, Obama continued to blame it on a video clip that no one saw.

I'm not sure Obama is smart enough to have orchestrated this on purpose, but this is a classic Clinton trick. Say it in a way intended for you to understand it one way, but use words that can be defended the other way just in case the truth comes out. Had Obama been successful in covering his incompetence he could have claimed that "acts of terror" was a general term to cover bad things that people do, including in spontaneous demonstrations.

What a piece of excrement that man is.

En fin . . . Romney didn't kill it the way he did last time, but he holds his own pretty well in these debates against Obama and the moderator.

Barack Obama is a pile of excrement. Have I mentioned that?

In the wake of his Libya screw-ups, he and his team played politics and deliberately misled. Then he tells Romney “The suggestion that anybody on my team is playing politics or misleading when we’ve lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive.”

Canned line. Memorized it in debate prep.

My head is going to explode. This is the Clintonian immunity trick. You do something so evil that anyone who points it out will sound evil.

Is it offensive? Are you freaking kidding me? You got the ambassador and the others killed, lied about it, and you're the one that's offended?

I'm guessing Charles Manson was pretty offended at the accusations that were made of him, too.

Barack Obama is a steaming pile of putrid excrement.

This was a follow-up to the Dennis Miller comment about "The democrats have lost their minds." The fact that you have two sides doesn't mean the truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one side is right and the other side is just plain wrong.

Water comprises one hydroxide ion and one hydrogen ion. That's just a fact. If you find someone (played in this case by a democrat) who believes water is a compound of fire, music, pencil lead and sexual deviance depicted in oils, that doesn't mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Let's see if I can think of a better example of just plain wrong . . . let's see . . . maybe a good example would be . . .

Hey, I've got it! Obamabots and Americans.

Democrats are wrong. Getting our ambassador and three other Americans killed by incompetence then launching a major cover-up is wrong; it's not just a different political viewpoint of equal value.

Okay, all of that pre-ramble (TM Frank Leany) was just to introduce Ann Coulter's column on Racism Sightings.

Just in case you missed the democrats losing their minds, read Ann Coulter's column. The democrats see racism everywhere. It is well beyond an charming little mental illness. When Romney said "I have five boys," that was –I'm not kidding; you can't make this stuff up—Romney's sneaky way of calling Obama "boy."

What?

Who hears the word "boy" in any context and thinks "black?" Racists do. (In the case of Maureen Dowd you hear "boy" even when it's not spoken). You know why liberals see racism everywhere. Liberals are racists.

Liberals are the ones who hear the word "boy"--or apartment or Chicago or "the" or . . . open a dictionary and stab your finger down anywhere—and think racism. That's their worldview; those are the lenses they look through.

I was having a BBQ at my house. We were reminiscing about an old injury that I had a couple of years ago. "I was crippled up," I said. "Man, I was so crippled up."

I said it a couple of times. Then I noticed Russ's crutches. Oh, crap. I felt a little silly, first, for complaining about my temporary injury when Russ's reality involves moving around on crutches every day. But also, in retrospect I felt bad about using the word "crippled" around someone who is crippled.

Why did I do something so insensitive? He was right there; I was talking right to him. Why did I do that?

Because I don't think of Russ as 'crippled.' When you say "Who's Russ?" I say "He's my friend. He's the one that built that really cool Mater derby car. He has that small business making orthopedic devices."

Is he . . .uh . . . does he have . . . is he on crutches?

"Hmm, yeah, I guess he is."

That's not the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of my friend. That's not what defines him.

Liberals define people by the color of their skin not by the content of their character.

Liberals are racist.

Someone asked me "What happens if Obama loses?" I said that I hoped Romney would try to work with Congress and implement free enterprise policies and . . .

No, I mean what will the democrats do?

Uh . . .

This person was of the opinion that they would go all Rodney King riot on us. Now what in the world would make someone think that? Why would someone believe that liberals riot when they don't get their way? What historical evidence . . . oh . . . right.

Apparently Ann Coulter holds a similar opinion. She believes there is potential for post-election riots if the man who is covering up getting our ambassador killed doesn't get re-elected.

Piers Morgan was giving Debbie Wasserman Shultz the opportunity to explain what happened in the aftermath of the Libyan embassy attack.

Her response was the Obama-sanctioned line that the whole hullabaloo was Mitt Romney's fault.

Really?

When pushed, she explained that the President knew Chris Stevens personally. Oh. Okay, then. No further questions. Thank you for clearing that whole thing up.

Watch the video. Just . . . I can't . . . wow . . .

Piers asked her about Susan Rice lying to everyone on the Sunday shows.

Slutz . . . is that how you spell it? . . . Anyway, she said "Piers, Piers, Piers, Piers, Piers! I can't believe you're saying this." She got all indignant “I can’t even believe that you would suggest that Ambassador Rice would make deliberately misleading statements!”

Again, do these people not know about video recording technology?

Susan Rice said it. It was wrong. It was as wrong as wrong can be. Was the Obama administration lying or stupid?

She was lying, as 1) we have found out, and 2) the Amateur administration is now vehemently claiming, saying they knew from the very beginning. Time only goes one way, it's an odd physical phenomenon. You can't have it both ways. You can not know, then know, but that happens later and once it happens you can't go back and change what you said before you didn't know . . . You can't emphatically deny that you denied it at the same time that you were emphatically denying that you knew it.

I can't believe how much of my life I waste extolling the obvious . . . if you already understand, you don't need me. If you don't get it, God help you, man, 'cause I can't.

You need to buy a program to keep up with the play. Today are they saying that they know and deliberately lied and are trying to cover it up, or are they trying to reassure us with the position that "We have absolutely no idea what's going on and have no clue how to find out."

These people are disgusting piles of excrement, including the President of the United States of America.

And here's an interesting note . . . when you start typing 'Debbie Wass . . .' into Google, you get prompted "Debbie Wasserman Shultz lies"

The trouble with political commentary is that it has a half like about like Mendelevium.

Oh, well, forging onward . . . or backward, as the case may be . . . to my notes about the last presidential debate weeks ago.

Here is a great comedic commentary on Obama's pathetic performance in the last debate.

Obama performed so badly in the debate, the thrill went back down Chris Matthews's leg.

The president did so poorly he even cancelled his next debate so he can meet with Benjamin Netanyahu

There was a dramatic drop in the unemployment number last week—which proves how poorly the Dept. of Labor thinks President Obama performed in the debate.

Obama did a horrible job in the actual debate—trying to defend his horrible policies. But he didn't perform badly—not when he was doing what he did well. Talking to people. Watch when he's talking by himself. He's doing what he does very very. What we saw when he was challenged was him displaying exactly what he really is. It was our first glimpse at reality.

As it turns out, I found a great mind that agrees with me, Victor Davis Hanson.

"Yet Obama was not that out of character in the debate -- at least not in comparison to his past performances. Obama's professorial detachment, his condescension, his long meandering answers, his avoidance of direct questions, his occasional petulance and his frequent verbal tics, stalls and stutters were all pretty normal for him."

Then Hanson echoes Ann Coulter "Barack Obama has always felt that it was enough to show up rather than to achieve."

You want to be President, but you can't stand up to someone in a debate?

John Ransom says it much better than me:"It's not the debate that's caused the problem. It's something far more ominous for Obama: reality."

Obama's strategy isn't new to anybody. The White House was playing the managing expectations game long before the debate started. "Mitt Romney has more experience, Obama's busy leading the nation . . . " all kinds of forms of BS.

It's a common trick—under-promise so you make it easier to over-deliver.

But look at it from this angle: Obama's standard approach is to always keep something handy to blame his failures on. Sucked at the debate? It's 'cause I visited the Hoover Dam. People don't like my socialism? It's because I'm black.

It's never him. Being black is very convenient for him. Any complaint anyone has against him has to be because he's black. It can't be because he's incompetent and arrogant and radical.

His weak performance couldn't have been because of his weak positions and his inability to deal with being challenged. Maybe it was anxiety medication, John Kerry, or one of the seventeen other reasons they have given. I'm not making any of these up. But his team needs to look up the term "plausible" when they try to use the plausible deniability trick. The altitude in Denver? Really?

Obama's trip to Hoover Dam (instead of debate prep) was devised to provide him with his Clintonian "Well, if it weren't for that . . ." excuse. I've flapped my gums about this before. Monica Lewinsky was the best thing that ever happened to the Clinton legacy because it masks the other horrible deficiencies he had as a leader. People can say, as they did about Kennedy being assassinated, "Well, if it weren’t for that, he would have been a good president!"

If he hadn't have visited the Hoover Dam he would have rocked in that debate!

Jackie Gingrich Cushman explains what I was talking about, that you're going to be deceived if you just look at the 7.8% unemployment number.

Michelle Malkin wrote this great column on how desperate dems are hiding behind Big Bird. Read it. Just do it.

And read this article by Jonah Goldberg echoing the sentiments of all of us that Obama should quit blaming Bush.

---

The Only Known Photo of Winston Churchill with Barack Obama

I got those last ones from this web site. I entered at the page with Mitt Romney tags, and the page with cartoons is here.

You know, I could really cut down on the number of linked stuff I post here if you just went to townhall.com and read it for yourself.

:o)

These "people," these sub-human anthropomorphic piles of excrement are incredible. Just absolutely . . . I can't even . . . Wow. Just . . . wow.

Read this piece where the State Department is now claiming they never blamed the video for the attack. Do these imbeciles not understand we have technology that stores video?

Please, God, please tell me that Americans are not stupid enough to be buying this load of crap.

But, since your head already exploded, you need to know it's all good, 'cause an attack on an embassy and killing our ambassador is only an issue because Romney is running.

Wow. Just . . . wow.

Just when you think these people could not possible be any more evil and incompetent at the same time. Holy freaking . . . wow . . .

Did you catch Axelrod on Fox News Sunday morning? Look it up on YouTube. If you aren't interested enough to look it up I'm not going to the trouble of posting a link. I can't. Even seeing that spawn of Satan's face will make my jugular explode. Satan is laughing like Joe Biden at the work that sonofatwobitstreetwalkerslut is doing.

But the scorpions will try to kill each other. Joe Klein is talking about how Bill Clinton (pardon my language) is assembling his legal team from back in the days when he was constantly in trouble to take down Obama for trying to pin it on Hillary. Look it up. Again, if you don't care enough about it to Google it, I don't either.

Really? It's Hillary's fault? Then why have you not fired her?

Poor Obama. Who knew that being so incompetent might someday have consequences?

I once asked a Chemistry professor "Why . . .?" I can't even remember the question, just his answer: "Why" is a religious question. We deal with science here.

Then he laughed and explained what I was asking about, but his answer has always stayed with me.

Let's just slip into religion a bit to try to see meaning in this nonsense. We have the worst US President possibly of all time. We've have some lackluster ones, but they were mostly innocuous. Maybe Woodrow Wilson was . . . I digress . . . the point is, that Obama is a horribly bad choice for President. We do not elect people like that, but whatever evil forces control such things found a way to ride a wave of hysteria to get him in.

What, in the long view, could the silver lining . . . or meaning or value . . . of that be? What purpose could that serve in the grand plan?

Obama is a divider.

That is a good thing—it's an illuminating thing.

His presidency makes things stark—black and white, if you will. Maybe, maybe four years ago you could have been forgiven for believing in the man. I personally think you were a complete freaking idiot and trying really, really hard to fool yourself if you didn't see through that empty suit four years ago. But let's be charitable and say you could possibly be forgiven for buying into the bullcrap and supporting Barack Obama four years ago.

That option is gone now.

After watching the way he's performed even the last six weeks, much less four years, no thinking human being can still say "I believe he is the right man to lead our country." That's what this has done for us. It has separated the wheat from the chaff. Obama's incompetence has drawn a stark line between the people in this country who are serious about making it a better place and those who have some other agenda.

Have you seen the book about Joe Biden's debate performance? It's called "Whiney the Pooh and the Blustery Day."

I saw a great TV show last week—Honey, I Shrunk the President, starring Mitt Romney.

'Cause they break up the monotony and they're easy to link to . . .

Read this article by Matt Patterson called "The Affirmative Action President, which he published on the American Thinker website.

Some highlights:

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

. . . how on Earth was such a man elected president?

. . . Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal . . . because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Unfortunately, minorities often . . .suffer from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.

Okay, the article (which, of course, you took the time to read by clicking on the convenient link I provided) is interesting enough. But even more interesting is the discussion that surrounds it.

Apparently the piece was passed around in an e-mail with the title "I, too, have become disillusioned" and Matt Patterson was said to be a Washington Post columnist and this was evidence that even the liberal media was waking up.

On the hubpages link above very little of the discussion is about what Patterson says. Most of it is a liberal saying the guy isn't allowed to re-post the article because of copyright laws. There's a standard liberal trick you recognize—silence the messenger.

Then there's the distraction: He doesn't work for the Washington Post!

So?

If the point is that this isn't evidence that the idiots in the media are growing a brain, well, I'll give you that. But after that can we discuss the content of the article?

Someone who actually does work for The Washington Compost said that Matt Patterson didn't work for them, but he could be this whacked out crazy lunatic nutjob named Matt Patterson that something or another somewhere or another blah blah blah. That's your basic ad hominen distraction, but I just wanted you to savor the irony of someone at the Washington Compost calling anyone a partisan nut job.

The other liberal trick in evidence is the ol' tried and true Straw Man and its variations. See, if something is false it's a bit tricky to prove that it's true. It's much easier to prove something true that is true. So what democrats typically do is just "prove" what they can then try to distract you from seeing that they're talking about something completely different than the issue.

"I can prove that Romney can't cut five trillion dollars by closing loopholes!"

Great, I can prove the moon isn't made of green cheese. Neither of them have anything to do with Romney's economic plan.

You remember the whack jobs on the lunatic Obama hating fringe did this, too. They send around pictures that proved that Obama had been with Rod Blagojevich multiple times. See! There it is.

Great, but he never said "I've only seen him once across the stadium at a Bears game." Exactly the same trick as factually destroying an economic plan that Romney never proposed.

The partisan whack job at the Compost , in the same little piece, answered a question about an appalling action Obama did, by proving Obama didn't do something entirely different that no one had accused him of doing. Someone asked about Barack Obama not putting his hand over his heart while the national anthem played (even though Hillary and Bill Richardson did). The Kool-Aid drinker directed the questioner to a site that proved that Obama never said we should replace the National Anthem with "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing."

Seriously.

But that doesn't debunk the fact that Obama stood through the entire National Anthem with his hands at his crotch. Apparently liberals don't get that we have devices that can make video recordings (Joe Biden).

I have a friend who divorced her husband over a religious conflict. You see, she is a Christian and he is Satan. I've heard church leaders say that divorce is almost never the right option. I'd have to agree that in this case divorce was not the best option. The problem is that the best option would have involved hiding a body, lying to the cops and concealing evidence.

What I'm trying to convey to you, is that this was a bad guy. This was not a good guy who had some flaws. This is a guy who makes you look up to heaven and say "Seriously, God? This is the kind of people you're sending down here?"

But one of her friends told her "You know, it takes two people to make a marriage work."

It's true that it takes two people to make a marriage work, but one person is plenty capable of wrecking one.

But if you've been to this site more than three minutes you know I'm not talking about marriage.

Someone was talking to Dennis Miller and saying something about "We need to find out why the two sides in this country can't come together." Dennis said "We know why, it's cause the democrats have lost their mind!"

The guy kinda chuckled and tried to make his lame point, but Dennis, bless his heart, said that no, he was serious. This wasn't a case of "Well, there's plenty of blame to go around . . . " (Where else have you heard that excuse blasted? That's right, right here, thank you.) Dennis was much more eloquent than I am, but it's true. I think I said it best with "It takes two people to make a marriage work, but one person is plenty capable of wrecking one." This isn't a situation where two sides are separated by a gulf and the "correct' position is somewhere in the middle of the two.

The democrats have lost their mind. Republicans aren't perfect, but democrats are . . . well, I can't do anything about brain tumors and comas, but if you're free from those maladies I don't have to explain to you how unhinged democrats are. Giving equal time to stupid ideas is not open-mindedness, it's stupidity,

I couldn't take it anymore. That blog template was just too hideous--and you can see by this page how hideous something would have to be to bee too hideous for this blog.

The whole idea was for it to be easy to post to and to have people comment on. Trouble is, in order to comment, you have to visit the page. Since no one does, no one did.

To read the incredibly insightful things I wrote in the three minutes the template was up, click this link to go to the sucky blog.

Well . . . the other sucky blog.

Here's a real blog. This one is Ed Driscoll's. The link takes you to page 2, 'cause that's the one that came up on the deal I was searching for. From there you can navigate to his current page.

Still trying to decide how to link to that other one that has the weekly content I don't want to send you to . . .

Why you gonna' go arresting this guy and blaming him for the violence in the Middle East?

I'm not the only one talking about the Evil or Stupid? deal.

The following is from Ed Driscoll's blog. (I suspect the link will go to the wrong place next month since his pages are numbered sequentially from the current, so this month's 3 is next month's 4 . . .)

---

‘A Clumsy Lie Beats Admitting to Eight Years of Hypocrisy’
September 16th, 2012 - 12:44 pm

“Jake, we’re not impotent. We’re not even less popular, to challenge that assessment. I don’t know on what basis you make that judgment. It’s actually the opposite. First of all, let’s be clear what transpired here. What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region, was a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the US government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting."

– Susan Rice, Obama’s UN Ambassador, to ABC’s Jake Tapper today.

Moe Lane of Red State.org on the embarrassing performance today by Rice, who insists the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous occurrence; Libya contradicts her. Moe replies:

I won’t belabor this next point: the reason why ‘spontaneous demonstration’ is so appealing an answer for the Obama administration is because that answer absolves them of having to take most of the responsibility for letting the attacks succeed. A genuinely spontaneous reaction to something that the administration didn’t actually do would be legitimately impossible to predict and hard to defend against, and people do know that. On the other hand, if the attack was premeditated, then the questions become Why didn’t the Obama administration catch this ahead of time? and Why wasn’t the Obama administration prepared for trouble? And the reasons why those questions are problematical is because they’re the same questions that Democrats asked the Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11. And the Democrats were notably contemptuous of the Bush administration’s answers, back then.

Which is pretty much why Ambassador Rice did her best today to keep the Obama administration from being in the same boat. Better that the administration look like victims, instead of incompetents; and besides, who’s getting harme… err, who’s getting harmed in the Oval Office by that?

Or to put it another way, “We knew what was happening, but the Americans preferred to find excuses.”

But hey, a guy was hauled away by law enforcement officials in the middle of the night for making a crappy YouTube video, so all’s now right the world, isn’t it?

As you know, the 'evil or stupid?' conundrum comes after you've done something wrong. Did you intentionally do something wrong, or did you do it out of incompetence?

A close personal friend of mine heard spitting gravel and squealing tires outside his house just after his son had left with a friend. He texted his son saying that he hoped that that exhibition of recklessness wasn't the car in which his son was riding.

My close personal friend's son texted back that "He says sorry, it wasn't intentional."

So . . . does my close personal friend feel better knowing that his son is riding with someone who is incapable of controlling his vehicle?

Thomas Sowell talks about the way Obama wrings his hands about civility then berates everybody in this great article.

Read it.

I guess after the debate Obama has resigned himself to looking puny and silly. Katie Pavlich points out how puerile Obama looks this great commentary about his desperate campaign to appear to be on the side of Big Bird.

Ridiculous times call for ridiculous statements from the Obama campaign. Campaign spokesperson Jen Psaki said on Air Force One this afternoon there was "grassroots outcry" about Big Bird and therefore the campaign decided to make the now infamous Big Bird ad.

"There's been a strong grassroots outcry over the attacks on Big Bird. This is something that mothers across the country are alarmed about, and you know, we're tapping into that," Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday.

"The larger point... is, aside from our love for Big Bird and Elmo, as is evidenced by the last few days, the point that we’re making here is that when Mitt Romney… was given the opportunity to lay out how he would address the deficit, when he said 'I will take a serious approach to it,' his first offering was to cut funding for Big Bird," Psaki said. "And that is absurd and hard to take seriously his specific plan."

 

Yes, you read that correctly. The Obama campaign is actually trying to paint Mitt Romney as unserious while they make an argument and have an ad based on Big Bird.

---

---

Guy Benson also shares his insights and video in this article called Super Serious President Talks About Super Serious Things.

---

Watch Deliverance. Then watch any action movie of today. I'd recommend Total Recall, but you could watch the Die Hard movies, or whatever you want.

There's a completely different pace to movies these days.

Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's when it happened. Since that movie came out we're not content to sit in a movie for more than five minutes at a time without action. Before that we were.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012 was such a point in history.

Since that date no one can take Barack Obama seriously. There was a great portion of the populace who didn't before then, but after he came across as weak and puny on the stage where he couldn't just talk at people, someone actually questioned him . . . well, the idiots who were wearing their Barack Obama capes are quietly putting them in their bottom drawer with their teddy bear and blankey now.

You've got to wonder, has he always been this silly? Maybe the scales have just fallen off our eyes. Embarrassing to think that maybe at some point he could have come out and talked about Sesame Street characters and had anybody in the country puff out his chest and say "Yes, sir! That's my President!"

I . . . I just . . . okay, I know this goes without saying to any audience that isn't having this read to them by their kindergarten teacher. But what kind of excuse is "Well, Obama just didn't prepare for the debate?" WTH?

A friend of my said it best--you be prepared, and you get ready. "Be prepared" doesn't mean pack your mess kit and a flashlight and matches and a sleeping bag. That's getting ready. Being prepared is something you are, not something you do.

"Mr. President, the Lybian embassy is being attacked!" Okay, let me start working on my decision making ability and call in some personal trainers to help me grow a spine and get back with me in oh, about six months or so.

If the President of the United States isn't familiar with the material for a discussion on current events, who is?

Just makes me crazy.

Anyway, the point I've deviated from is that now we know. Now we've seen Obama in a situation where he is challenged. He was weak and scared and pitiful. Limbaugh said it best: he looked "puny."

"But. . . but . . . but, where's the media to come fight my battles for me?"

Speaking of saying it best, Ann Coulter. Yep, she saw it the way I did.

" . . . he's never been challenged his entire life. Everywhere he goes he gets a standing ovation. He becomes President and wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He's never been challenged before . . . the fact that Obama didn't prepare—I mean, this is like his not being prepared for the attack on our consulate. He never prepares! He just expects to walk out, and be cool, and get a standing ovation."

George Smurfanopolous is evil. The guy did, after all, work for Bill Clinton.

I tried, I did, I tried to see him in a different light. Maybe he'd see the error of his ways. Maybe his association with someone who is "all too human" made him see the light and join the non-evil portion of humanity.

No such luck.

George Smurfanopolous figures that the debate was a tie. In a related story, MSNBC will be running a series on how Custer won the Battle of Little Big Horn.

Nobody who thinks believes the debate was anything but a humiliation for Obama. Nobody.

So the debate serves as an excellent litmus/sanity test. It's revealing to watch how stupid people like Smurfanopolous (and Chris Matthews and the entire staff of MSNBC) are willing to look. How you react to the debate is the ultraviolet light that exposes the nasty stains on the bedsheets of humanity.

---

Note: I just re-read this, and yes, I do know that Smurfanopolous doesn't work for MSNBC, but he might as well.

Did you hear about that uncomfortable moment at the press conference with Obama?

Yeah, I guess a Fox News reporter was telling Obama "You know what I miss about George Bush?"

"What's that?" Obama asked.

"Well, with George Bush I could stand up any time and criticize the way he was doing things, and he'd listen to me."

"Well, that's no different in my Amerika," Obama told him.

"It's not?"

"Nope. I'll listen to you criticize George Bush anytime you want, too."

I'm giving the cartoon above some extra space to set it apart from the rest of these, seein's how on accounta'cuz it really is an excellent cartoon.

A black man, a muslim and a communist walk into a bar. The bartender says "What can I get you, Mr. President?"