The Final Insult: Napolitano Considering Exempting Muslims From Airport Pat Downs

Excuse me?


Pssssst TSA: Doesn’t this sorta defeat the purpose?!

According to Judicial Watch, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering waving airport pat downs for Muslim women who consider them offensive. I consider them offensive – do I get an exemption, too?

The demand came last week from the politically-connected Muslim rights organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Calling the searches “invasive” and “humiliating,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) advises Muslim women wearing religious head covers known as hijabs to reject full-body checks before boarding planes.

Those who are selected for the secondary screenings should remind Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers that they are only supposed to pat down the head and neck and that they should not subject Muslim women to a full-body or partial body pat-down, according to CAIR’s advisory. It further says that, instead of a body search, Muslim women can request to check their own hijab and have officers perform a chemical swipe of their hands.

While Americans are forced to deal with the degrading searches, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslims as per CAIR’s demands. Madame Secretary confirmed this week that there will be “adjustments” and “more to come” on the issue of Muslim women in hijabs undergoing airport security pat-downs.

In the meantime her agency is targeting a San Diego man who received worldwide media coverage for refusing to let a TSA agent conduct a thorough body search that he felt amounted to a “sexual assault.” Referring to his genitals, the man told the TSA officer; “you touch my junk and I’m going to have you arrested.”

The head of TSA in San Diego called a press conference this week to announce that the agency has launched an investigation into the 31-year-old software programmer who was not allowed to board the plane. The feds plan to prosecute and fine him thousands of dollars for making them look bad. Actually, the official charge is leaving the airport’s security area without permission, which is prohibited to prevent terrorism.

This is how completely upside down this country’s national security posture has become. The people who frankly, should be receiving the most attention at airport screenings may get exempted from the offensive grope and grabs, while innocent toddlers  in wheelchairs get worked over.

The “Don’t Touch My Junk” guy is a national hero. In saner times, he would be given a medal for refusing to submit to an insane, and unjust policy.

Linked by Maggie’s Notebook, thanks!

(Video) Obama’s War On Women

Via The Other McCain, this clever RNC ad asks, why doe Obama hate women?

Seriously, how much respect does the guy have for women when he uses them as political props  for his reelection? He thinks all he has to do is throw free contraceptives at us, and we’re all gonna love him. I think women should be insulted by it.

See Also:

The Lonely Conservative: Who’s War on Women? for additional commentary.


The First Time The Ayers Family’s Mailman Heard of Barack

Last week, I posted video of Trevor Loudon’s talk on communist infiltration in the United States – how it has  Infiltrated the DNC and now runs the party. Loudon explained how Obama was mentored by Communist party agent, Frank Marshall Davis, who the FBI had standing orders to arrest, if war ever broke out. He also talked about the Chicago Communist Leaders who facilitated Obama’s meteoric rise into politics, and Obama’s involvement with the Ayers family, who have a far left political lineage.

Adding to that narrative, today, is Jack Cashill, of The American Thinker, who examines an incredible story told by Alan Hulton, a mailman who delivered mail in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, from 1962 to 2001.

During roughly ten of those years, he delivered mail to the home of Tom and Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers’s parents.  Hulton talked to Tom once, Mary several times, their daughter-in-law Bernardine Dohrn a few times, and Bill Ayers not at all.  Memorably, he talked once to one of their visitors, but more on that in a moment.

As Hulton tells Corsi — and he has sworn an affidavit to the same — he met Tom Ayers not long after the Ayerses moved to the neighborhood.

Until he retired in 1980 at the age of 65, Tom Ayers was the CEO and chairman of Commonwealth Edison.  Tom, however, was not your garden-variety plutocrat.  According to Diamond, who knows his way around Chicago politics, Tom was a “lifelong liberal” — one deeply involved in the same educational reform movement that engaged son Bill and, briefly, Barack Obama in 1988.  Tom Ayers was comfortable enough with Bill’s lifestyle to live with him in Hyde Park until Tom died in 2007

When Hulton met Tom Ayers, they talked about working conditions at the Post Office.  “I couldn’t believe how he responded,” Hulton told Diamond.  “He started to talk about workers having to struggle to survive and about peasants and the proletariat.  It made me think later that he might be a Marxist!”  Hulton would tell Corsi, “I had this uncomfortable feeling that he thought he knew about my situation as a working person better than I did, that he knew what was best for me.”
Sounds like a typical lefty until you find out who they were helping out…
Hulton also recalls one particular conversation with Mary Ayers.  “She was enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student that they were helping out,” he tells Corsi, “and she referred to him as a foreign student.”  Adds Hulton, “I was taken aback by how enthusiastic she was about him.”  Within a year of this conversation, Hulton had a fateful meeting with the young man he presumed Mary was talking about.

According to Hulton, he encountered the fellow on the sidewalk on the front of the Ayers home.  In that it was extremely rare to see a black man in this tony neighborhood, Hulton believes that the man felt the need to explain his visit to the Ayers household.  Hulton describes him as friendly and neatly, although casually, dressed.  Hulton tells Corsi, “I am absolutely positive that it was Barack Obama.”

Hulton was sympathetic.  After he had come out of military service, he was a supporter of Martin Luther King, who had pressed for fair housing in the Chicago area in the 1960s.  “I took some flak about my support for civil rights from my fellow workers at the time,” remembers Hulton.

Obama explained to Hulton that he had taken the train out from Chicago to Glen Ellyn in order “to thank the Ayers family personally for helping him with his education.”  What shocked Hulton was that when casually inquiring into the young man’s plans for the future, Obama answered, “I am going to be president of the United States.”  As Hulton tells Corsi, “[i]t came across like this was something that’s already been determined.”  Adds Hulton, “I was speechless.”


Damn it.

That leads me again to Tom Fife’s story, outrageous, and unseemly as it is: The First Time I Heard Of Barack:

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M. V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions. As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge – one her husband tried to quietly rein in. The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this: “You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn’t do it.” The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.” The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not. “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?” The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.” It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it.

One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.” “Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call “Ivy League”. You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your President.”

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly – as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead. She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African'”, she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism and Barack was going to pave the way.

Obama has marinated in Communism his whole entire life – from his communist upbringing, to his college days seeking out the Marxist and radical professors – to his days as an Alinskyite community organizer and later a State Rep, surrounding himself with Chicago’s most  radical leftists, to his ascension to the US Senate and finally, and tragically for America –  the White House.

When you connect all of the dots, a disturbing picture emerges –

Why Is Obama Administration Not Interested In Defense of the United States?

Statement from the Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Rep. Michael Turner:
“Since entering office, the Obama Administration has demonstrated a lack of interest in, and support for, missile defense – specifically, the defense of the United States. In its first budget submission to the Congress, President Obama slashed $1.16 billion out of the missile defense budget, more than a ten percent reduction, in a single year.
And this one:

Obama cuts military health care benefits, leaves unionized civilians untouched:

Bill Gertz at the Washington Free Beacon writes of a growing controversy in Congress and the Pentagon over the Obama administration’s latest brainstorm for cutting our defense budget:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

Obama Poised to Betray America Through 4 UN Treaties (Video):

Could Obama really be on the verge of making our worst conspiracy theory nightmares about a “new world order” come true, under the radar, while most people are focused on the primaries?

Dick Morris is sounding the alarm about four uttely heinous UN treaties that are currently under consideration by the Obama administration that would surrender our sovereignty, cede power to go to war to the UN,  enact gun control, and tell us how to raise our children, if ratified by the Senate. These are treaties that the Bush administration and even Clinton administration would never have considered, but as the most radical  administration in American history enters it’s last year, all stars are in alignment for it to happen.

Why the NDRP E.O. of 3/16/2012 is Different:

Why is the 3/16/2012 Executive Order worthy of grave concern? Simply put, because of the man and the regime who issued it. This is a man, and a regime that has done the following:

-Sent the Secretary of Defense (Leon Panetta) to Congress to put them on notice that despite the explicitness of the Constitution, the consent of the Congress to wage war will neither be solicited nor required by the Commander in Chief or his regime. The CiC and SECDEF may, if they feel like it and can find the time, MAY inform the Congress of “kinetic military actions” henceforth.

-Declared the First Amendment null and void by mandating that every American must, as a condition of legal residency in the United States, pay for abortions. Mr. Morrissey, being a Catholic, you should understand that what the Obama regime has done is demand your very soul. In order to remain corporeally “free” in the United States of America, you must enter into mortal sin, reject Jesus Christ in totality, turn your back on your Crucified Savior, excommunicate yourself from the Church, and consign your immortal soul to eternal hell. If that isn’t the prohibiting of the free exercise of religion, then nothing is or ever could be.

-Committed acts of war upon the sovereign nation of Mexico and her people, willfully arming narco-terrorists with the intent of using the optics of hundreds if not thousands of brutally murdered Mexicans in order to stir up and justify the overthrow of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is textbook sedition.

-Has coordinated with regime cronies in the Legislative Branch to enable the Obama regime to operate for an entire term WITH NO BUDGET WHATSOEVER. In this time, the Obama regime has looted the United States Treasury and debased the currency of the United States to the tune of SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS, or roughly one-half the gross domestic product.

This is just a very, very, very short list. Additionally, with each passing day it is being further revealed that EVERY SINGLE PERSON Barack Obama has ever associated with has been not merely a Marxist, not merely a Socialist, not merely a Communist, but a TOTALITARIAN hellbent on the destruction of the United States of America.

I’ll concede the point that if this Executive Order was issued by – get this – Jimmy Carter or even Bill Clinton, I could buy the idea that it was merely an emergency protocol housekeeping item of some sort geared toward the reaction of the Federal Government after a nuclear attack. I’d be skeptical, but I would be open to the argument.

Not so now. These people are totalitarian tyrants who are no longer even trying to hide their intentions. See the bulleted items above. There comes a point where you have to pull your head out of the sand, synthesize a massive dataset into its obvious, coherent output, and be willing to know the worst, and to provide for it.

Denying the obvious, even when the obvious is horrific, is not some sort of virtue. Keeping people numb to reality and drunk on a sugary treacle of distraction and reassurance that “everything’s okay” even when every iota of data and experience tells us that everything is NOT OKAY is not a virtuous public service. It is a massive failure in charity, both towards those who are misled and falsely-consoled by your assurances, and toward those whose intellects and intentions you backhandedly insult.

How willing is the Republican establishment to fight this?  Last month I asked, Why Won’t Republicans Stop Obama’s Arrogant, Paternalistic,Totalitarian Overreach? Because the abuses of power are stacking up, yet no one does anything. The base wants to vet Obama so America knows what the hell we’re dealing with. The establishment’s  favored candidate is Mitt Romney, who is on the verge of winning the nomination,  and he refuses to say an unkind word about Obama except to say, “he’s in over his head.”
God help us.
We are going to lose unless Republicans get serious.
Editor’s Note: You’ll want to read the entire American Thinker piece as I’ve only excerpted a portion of it. Cashill also revisits Obama’s connection to Dr. Khalid al-Mansour.
Joan of Arrgghh has a good question — Does Obama act like a man who is worried about re-election?
Read the answers in the comment section.
Linked by Michelle Malkin, thanks!

Insulter-in-Chief Participates in Anti-Bullying Campaign

Political Punch reported this interesting bit of news over the weekend:

President Obama opened up a 30-minute documentary on childhood bullying for Cartoon Network this evening, continuing awareness initiatives he set into motion last year.

The minute-long introduction, which was pre-taped, featured the president speaking directly to the camera for the documentary titled “To SPEAK UP Against Bullying,”  a 30-minute special broadcast that aired Sunday on Cartoon Network.

I don’t know what the Cartoon Network is thinking. Having this President be the spokesman for an anti-bullying campaign is like using Michael Moore as a spokesman for the healthy eating campaign. This President has earned the nick-name “Insulter-in-Chief” because of his willingness to use his office as a platform for attacks on his political opponents and their supporters.

Just last week, he labeled Republicans as “Flat Earthers” for resisting his hair-brained green energy schemes. Bullying is what this President does best, although his constant refrain of insults to Republicans is wearing thin, if his latest poll numbers are any indication.

Last Fall, Victor David Hanson compiled a list which he called “only a tiny sampling” of those who have been on the receiving end of the president’s disdain:

African Americans: “Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’.”

Americans: Are “not a model for the world” and have a “tragic history.” Also, “we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” and, more recently, we have gotten “a little soft” and lost our “competitive edge.”

Bankers: “Fat cats”

Border enforcement: Its overzealous adherents want “alligators and moats” on the border and would arrest children on their way to get ice cream.

The Cambridge, Mass., police: “Acted stupidly” and, like law-enforcement officers in general, racially profile

Corporate-jet owners: “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate-jet owner can get a tax break?”

Democratic base: Must “shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up . . . if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.”

Doctors:Needlessly chop off the limbs of diabetics and take out tonsils to increase their own profits

Donald Trump: A “carnival barker”

Grandmother: “Typical white person”

Las Vegas: Where you are likely to “blow a bunch of cash when you’re trying to save for college”

Millionaires: They don’t pay their “fair share” and are synonymous with those who have 1,000 times more.

Nancy Reagan: Don’t “get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances.”

Rural Pennsylvanians: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment.”

Sarah Palin: “You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.”

Special Olympics: Comparable to the president’s dismal bowling scores

Super Bowl: Where you go “on the taxpayer’s dime”

Supreme Court: Would “open the floodgates for special interests”

Supreme Court Justice Thomas: “I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.”

Tea Party: “The teabag, anti-government people”

At the American Thinker, Ed Lasky chronicled Obama’s unpresidential abuse of Republicans in depth:

He does not practice what he preaches, but then again, has he ever?

This attitude was most notably on display when Obama used the 2010 State of the Union address to chastise the members of the Supreme Court for their decision in the Citizens United case ( a decision that imperiled his own political prospects, as it has led to more fundraising targeting him personally).  The assembled jurists do not have to attend the State of the Union speech; they attended as a sign of respect.  How was that respect returned?  Obama lashed out in a stinging personal rebuke, calling into question their intelligence and legal reasoning.  The jurists have never responded, save for a reflexive “you’re wrong” wagging of the head by Justice Alito.  Obama, constitutional lecturer or not, was wrong.

But there have been a litany of these types of personal attacks and ambushes.  Lest we forget, Obama insulted Hillary Clinton during a 2008 debate by saying, “You’re likeable enough.”  How gallant!

But it gets worse.

John McCain was trying to get a point across to president Obama regarding the process by which the health care bill was produced.  Obama chose not to respond on the merits, but just to slap McCain down — letting him know his place — with the rejoinder “the election is over, John.”  Surely McCain dealt with worse at the hands of the North Vietnamese, but why did Obama have to taunt him?

Obama revels in his victory, though, and instead of being gracious, he brandishes it with relish.  Three days after his inauguration, when the nation was in the throes of financial panic, Congressman Eric Cantor brought a plan to the White House to help America.  Obama dismissed it with the boast “Eric, I won.”  One month later, at a “fiscal responsibility” (how ironic that looks almost three years and trillions of dollars later) summit, Obama singled out Cantor for particular opprobrium: “I’m going to keep on talking to Eric Cantor.  Someday, sooner or later, he’s going to say, ‘Boy, Obama had a good idea.'”

Obama enjoys ambushing people.  He invites them to events just to humiliate them in front of an audience.

President Obama invited freshman Republican Congressman Aaron Schock to fly on Air Force One with him for a visit to a Caterpillar plant in Schock’s district.  Schock was thrilled to hitch a ride — who wouldn’t be?  But it was a ruse.  Obama was drumming up support for his stimulus bill and wondered out loud if Schock would measure up to the two men who had the seat before him.

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times gives us a flavor of this treatment:

Said Obama at the plant, “I want to thank Peoria’s own Ray LaHood, who is doing outstanding work as my Transportation secretary.  You know, Ray comes from a long line of Republicans I love, starting with Bob Michel and — you know, they’re just — I think there’s a common-sense, Midwestern, can-do, bipartisan attitude that Ray represents.  And I am so pleased that he’s in my Cabinet.

“Now, his successor, Congressman Schock — where is he?  He’s back here.  He’s right here.  Stand up, Aaron.  This is — Aaron’s still trying to make up his mind about our recovery package. … So, you know, he has a chance to be in the mold of Bob Michel and Ray LaHood.”

Schock is the youngest member of Congress.  How courteous was it for the president to lure him into a joint appearance at the plant, merely to put him on the spot like that in front of the assembled employees (and voters) at the plant?  Cordial in private, but arm-twisting in public.  There is a name for someone like that, and it should not be “President.”

People should be wary of appearing at these plant visits by Obama.  They are Obama’s happy hunting grounds.  He meted out the same Schockian treatment to then-Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, who was running for governor at the time.  Obama was attending the groundbreaking of yet another advanced car battery factory in Michigan — a Japanese-owned plant that received stimulus dollars.  Hoekstra opposed the stimulus bill but was there for the event.  Hoekstra was sitting in the front row.  Obama saw an easy — and cheap — shot, and he took it.

Scott Johnson of Powerline picked up the story that somehow major media outlets missed (italics in original):

For reasons that remain mysterious to me, Obama seized the opportunity to attack Hoekstra:

There are some folks who want to go back — who think we should return to the policies that helped to lead to this recession,” Obama said later in his comments honoring a new advanced battery factory being built by the company LG Chem.  “Some made the political calculation that it’s better to obstruct than lend a hand.  They said no to the tax cuts, they said no to small business loans, they said no to clean energy projects.  It doesn’t stop them from coming to ribbon cuttings — but that’s OK.

The president’s remarks were both classless and petty.  Hoekstra aptly commented: “It demeans the office of the president.  It’s disappointing.  It is unpresidential.”  Hoekstra added: “This is my home district.  These people are paying the taxes that he’s handing out today.  I’m here to respect the office of the president, and I don’t think he reciprocated.” Video of Obama’s attack and Hoekstra’s response is accessible here.

Hoekstra was respecting the office of the president.  Were Obama to do the same, he might find that he can gain allies across the aisle — as did President Clinton.

Instead, Obama seems to delight in ridiculing Republicans in front of America.

Congressman Paul Ryan has earned the respect of millions of Americans for his hard work on the budget and for developing his plan for dealing with the fiscal and debt challenges facing the nation.  Earlier this year, Ryan and a few other Republican leaders were specifically invited by Obama to attend one of his speeches.  Ryan was given pride of place in the front row.  Ryan said that he and others were hopeful that Obama was signaling a shift and a willingness to work with them in the spirit of bipartisanship that Obama preached in 2008.  The congressman should have learned that hope was just a four-letter campaign slogan:

However, to Ryan’s amazement what he got from Obama, publicly, was not an olive branch at all but Obama poisoning the well! In front of the whole audience Obama lashed out specifically at Rep.  Ryan! It was like watching a strict school teacher chastising a wayward school boy in front of the class.

Obama insulted Ryan and the other Republican “guests,” dismissing Ryan’s plan as unserious and un-American.  Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post was perplexed by the president’s behavior:

“What came to my mind was: Why did he invite us?” Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said in an interview Thursday.  “It’s just a wasted opportunity.”

The situation was all the more perplexing because Obama has to work with these guys: Camp is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, responsible for trade, taxes and urgent legislation to raise the legal limit on government borrowing.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) chairs the House Republican Conference.  And Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is House Budget Committee chairman and the author of the spending blueprint Obama lacerated as “deeply pessimistic” during his 44-minute address.

At a time when the parties risk economic catastrophe unless they can come together to raise the debt limit, Obama’s partisan tone made no sense, Republicans across Capitol Hill said Thursday.  Even some Obama allies wondered whether the president had made a tactical error.

Ryan said he should have suspected that something was afoot when he did not see the White House budget director or the secretary of the treasurer at a speech billed as the rollout for Obama’s budget plan.  (As has been true of so many anticipated Obama plans, what Obama introduced as his budget plan in this case was “vaporware.”)  Whom did he see?  David Plouffe, Obama’s senior political adviser.

The American Spectator’s Ben Stein described Obama’s demeanor at a fund-raising rally he happened to catch on CSPAN, Friday:

… he has accentuated this habit of cockily throwing his head back in a way that accentuates his unfortunate look of arrogance. I don’t think he is an arrogant person, but he has that look.

He also has some new thing going on where he pushes his tongue around inside his mouth to express disgust with Republicans. It is a sort of Eastern European mouth gesture that I rarely see among Gentiles, and I would even say I rarely see it among men. But it’s there.

Those stories describe the behavior of a narcissistic bully and his enablers. The Cartoon Network should be ashamed of itself for using him as a spokesman for their anti-bullying campaign.
 Obama’s failed Presidency should be used as a cautionary tale of WHAT NOT TO DO.

Bristol Palin to Obama: “Hey, How About a Little Consistency?”

Bristol Palin, Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far

By now, it is abundantly clear that Obama’s PAC has no intention of returning trash talker, Bill Maher’s, dirty money, even after the President called the 31 year old reproductive rights activist, Sandra Fluke, in an ostentatious display of fatherly concern over Rush Limbaugh’s harsh rhetoric. Conservatives have rightly called the President out on his gross hypocrisy, but other than her mom, very few have the “absolute moral authority” to confront Obama on the issue,  that the young mother, Bristol Palin has.

From Bristol’s blog, Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?, via Gateway Pundit:

Dear President Obama,

You don’t know my telephone number, but I hope your staff is busy trying to find it. Ever since you called Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, I figured I might be next.  You explained to reporters you called her because you were thinking of your two daughters, Malia and Sasha.  After all, you didn’t want them to think it was okay for men to treat them that way:

“One of the things I want them to do as they get older is engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on,” you said.  “I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way. And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

And I totally agree your kids should be able to speak their minds and engage the culture.  I look forward to seeing what good things Malia and Sasha end up doing with their lives.

But here’s why I’m a little surprised my phone hasn’t rung.  Your $1,000,000 donor Bill Maher has said reprehensible things about my family.  He’s made fun of my brother because of his Down’s Syndrome. He’s said I was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.”  (In a classy move, he did this while his producers put up the cover of my book, which tells about the forgiveness and redemption I’ve found in God after my past – very public — mistakes.)

If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you.  After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager.  That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you.  Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women.  You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.


Read the rest at Bristol’s blog.

See also, Gateway Pundit, for the video clip from the Bill Maher show she referred to in her letter.