UPDATED: Bitch Pitch (Orgasmic Oracles)

Business, Capitalism, Elections, General, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Taxation

In anticipation of their president’s performance tonight, the pitches for BHO coming from likes of CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux and her colleague Jessica Yellin reached a crescendo today. Yellin was yelling about her man’s achievements, no less. After all, the economy looks good through the eyes of a sinecured CNN, left-liberal correspondent.

Malveaux sought out a professor who was able to smuggle into his conversation about problem solving a word about different presidential cognitive styles. Hint: Obama, aka “You Can’t Fix Stupid,” was “professorial,” deliberate, thoughtful. Bush, an equal-offender moron, was an impetuous Decider.

Malveaux set the scene for questioning a tax expert about Mitt’s money by framing the discussion thus: “He [Romney] hasn’t done anything illegal, has he?”, the link between having money and criminality having been established.

To be charitable, these bimbos are so dim, they operate hormonally, on a subconscious level. They know not what they do, although forgive them you should not.

UPDATE: Just heard Jessica (I don’t watch CNN, John; I listen to it while doing chores). Made a point of not watching her act all in heat. What has excited Yellin so? The president is going to present a “vision” for the nation, she tells us. He will pose a question [to the same stupid people who cannot read his previous, almost-identical SOTU]: What kind of America do you want? One in which rich people [many of whom were once poor] rob the poor, or one in which each has a fair shot? Here Jess cracked a greedy, goulash smile, for (and I’m paraphrasing), as she added, while prez will not point fingers, you will KNOW exactly to whom he is referring.

UPDATED: State of Disunion (The Barf Rule)

America, Barack Obama, Constitution, Democrats, History, Politics, Propaganda, Republicans

Not that the Xbox nation would notice, but there are a lot more flashing images on Barack Obama’s website, at WhiteHouse.gov, than there are written words. As such, not much information is available on the president’s annual State of the Union message.

But like everything in the Constitution, a modest thing has morphed into a monstrosity. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution required that the president “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of Union.”

A “Stalinesque extravaganza” that ought to offend “anyone of a republican (small ‘r’ …) sensibility,” is how National Review’s John Derbyshire has described the State of the Union speech. “American politics frequently throws up disgusting spectacles. It throws up one most years in January: the State of the Union speech,” writes Derb in “We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism,” a book I discussed in “Derb Is Right: ‘We Are Doomed'”

John goes on to furnish the quotidian details of how “the great man” is announced, how he makes an entrance; the way “the legislators jostle to catch his eye” and receive his favor. “On the podium at last, the president offers up preposterously grandiose assurances of protection, provision, and moral guidance from his government, these declarations of benevolent omnipotence punctuated by standing ovations and cheers from legislators” (p. 45).

Then there is the display of “Lenny Skutniks” in the audience, “model citizens chosen in order to represent some quality the president will call on us to admire and emulate” (last year it was the family of the little girl who was murdered by the Tucson shooter).

Derb analyzes this monarchical, contrived tradition against the backdrop of the steady inflation of the presidential office, and a trend “away from ‘prose’ to ‘poetry’; away from substantive argument to “hot air.”

The president of the USA is now “pontiff, in touch with Divinity, to be addressed like the Almighty.”

Prepare to puke.

UPDATE (Jan. 24): THE BARF RULE. The “Lenny Skutnik” for 2012 is …Warren Buffett’s secretary.

Debbie Bosanek “will be sitting with the first lady in her gallery box Tuesday night as President Obama announces his plans for tax reform at the State of the Union address. Bosanek, who has worked for Buffett for nearly two decades, has become as symbol of Obama’s tax reform plan. The ‘Buffett rule,’ named after her billionaire boss, aims to insure that wealthy taxpayers do not pay an effective tax rate lower than their secretaries.” (Via FoxNews)

Prepare to barf.

Rand Paul Manhandled

Homeland Security, Regulation, Relatives, Republicans, Rights, Ron Paul, Terrorism, The State

I far prefer Ron Paul’s strident response to the TSA’s assault on Rand Paul than the son’s watered-down words. To CNN’s Erin Burnett, Rand said, essentially, that the TSA folks were good people bogged down by inflexible rules. He followed up with special pleading.

It is not the first time special interests—House and Senate representatives, for example—suggest a system of sectional privileges and rights, based on professional need and proximity to power. Patrick Smith, the author of Salon’s “Ask the Pilot,” has implied that because of his professional position, he should be entitled to “preferential, alternative checkpoints for pilots.”

Such cloistered concerns typified a 2,000-strong, flight attendant’s union, which has been fielding tons of complaints from its members, who were, nevertheless, none too concerned for their customers, the manhandled passengers.

Noelle Nikpour, contributor to Mr. Sean Hannity’s Great American Panel, is another. Nikpour, a tedious Republican strategist who talks up a storm on that forum, extended her exquisite understanding of individual rights to … people like herself and her co-panelists. You know, important sorts who fly a lot; they ought to be able to acquire a permit that’ll exempt them from being screened afresh as they scurry to their important appointments.

Rand seems to have joined these special-case pleaders in asking for wavers for frequent fliers who’ve been willing to share more personal data with the goons of the TSA.

I prefer the Ron Paul presidential campaign’s “strongly worded statement Monday afternoon, blistering the TSA for its practices”:

“The police state in this country is growing out of control. One of the ultimate embodiments of this is the TSA that gropes and grabs our children, our seniors and our loved ones and neighbors with disabilities. The TSA does all of this while doing nothing to keep us safe,” it said.

To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question

America, Foreign Policy, Islam, Just War, Middle East, Neoconservatism

“To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question” is my new weekly column, now up on RT (the reason for the late posting was explained here). Here is an excerpt:

“It’s okay to kill ’em, but it’s not okay to pee on them once they’re dead.

This sums up the piss-poor discussion over the LiveLeak clips of “four United States Marines urinating on three dead Taliban fighters.” According the New York Times, the videos, “posted on public video-sharing Web sites including YouTube, began ricocheting around international news Web sites on Wednesday,” January 11.

The urinators “are members of the Third Battalion, Second Marines, which completed a tour of Afghanistan this fall before returning to its base at Camp Lejeune, N.C.” They kicked off the wee odyssey in the northern part of Helmand Province.

Quick to distinguish themselves were the pro-pee pundits. For a ghastly moment, I was back in 2002, watching the anchorwomen of Fox News countdown to obliterating Iraq. How like watching bitches in heat that experience was!

The force of the to-pee-or-not-to-pee position is just up Beavis and Butthead’s philosophical alley. The repartee of the two animated MTV characters, the products of Mike Judge’s genius (think “Idiocracy”), would go something like this:

Butthead: “Beavis, check this out. What’s better; to have a dude waste you or whiz on you, uh huh huh?” (Sound effects are here.)

Beavis: “Yeah, yeah, I’ll take the whiz, Butthead, gimme the whiz, yeah, yeah.” (More grunting.)

As the Daily Mail noted, the dead Afghans may have been civilians or insurgents, we simply do not know. Whichever is the case, they would have, I wager, welcomed the kind of options even Beavis and Butthead are capable of entertaining.

For the truth about the people we are pissing on and pissing off in Afghanistan is quite simple. America’s indisputably brave soldiers have been ordered to, at once, woo and war against a primitive Pashtun population. These Pashtuns disdain the central government we desperately want them to obey. So it goes: We help local groups believed to be patriotic, but, at the same time, end up establishing an authoritarian protectorate they despise. …

The complete column is “To Pee Or Not To Pee is Not the Question”. Read it on RT. Do “Like” it on Facebook and Retweet it to Twitter.