The Thing with One Eyebrow

Charles Krauthammer at the Washington Post and Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club are duking it out over the significance of Omaba's falling approval numbers. Both make good points so read the essays. However, I think they are both missing the central threat.

Never forget that Hillary Clinton is still out there marking time in a high level post that allows contact with the players but lets her stay out of the political cauldron. The discontent with Obama is largely because he has not been leftwing enough and that will not get a conservative (which these days is synonymous with rightwing socialist, anyways) much less a libertarian elected. The Party apparatchiks have not forgotten about Hillary and, unless Obama pulls his head a rabbit from his arse hat, she may well be the Democratic candidate in 2012 and ride to victory on the votes of the discontented Obama supporters combined with the party faithful.

H/T to Western Rifle Shooters Association

Don't Blame Obama, Blame Star Trek.

The Unwanted Blog has an unusual tongue-in-cheek explantion for the current mess in DC. He blames the replacing of the character Kes in Star Trek:Voyager with Seven of Nine played by Jeri Ryan.

Long story short, Jeri Ryan’s work on Voyager contributed to her getting a divorce. The divorce eventually led to Jack Ryan dropping out of a Senate race, which was then easily won by Barack Obama who used it as a springboard to the White House.

One of the lessons to be learned:

1) If the selection of a space-elf only a few years old to be the sex symbol on a Star Trek series can have massive and completely unpredictable long-term real-world consequences… then any long-term plan that relies on the future being predictable in detail stands a damned good chance of failing spectacularly.

Good advice. Too many folks who think an economy can be planned see the present situation as standing alone. They rob it of context and use it a starting point rather than a part of a history.

Even the Liberals Know Obama Was Lying

In his unique and brilliant style, Vin Suprynowicz analyzes the State of the Union address. He can tell it was pack of lies because of the total silence from those who would be outraged if they believed Obama was telling the truth.

For instance, the president said, according to the White House’s prepared transcript: “We should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system — to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation.

Gee that sounds good doesn't it? So where are the screams of protest from the pro-illegal immigration groups?

Did you see any headlines in the days following the president’s speech, reporting “Immigration advocates” (meaning “Illegal Immigration advocates,” of course ) “express outrage at border-sealing initiative / La Raza and ACLU file lawsuit against deadly land-mine plan?”

Of course not. No one responded as though the president meant it — or even bothered to ask if he meant it — because they all knew he was lying, mouthing tested but blatantly untrue things merely to assuage those rubes out there in the sticks.

The media, as usual, was completely bamboozled too:

But no reporter even checked back to see when he plans to start; no radical group in favor of the reconquest of Aztlan bothered to voice a protest and file a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the coming round-ups and mass deportations. Why? Because they all know Mr. Obama was lying up a storm.

The tried and true method of determining if a politician is lying involves direct observation:  If his (or her) lip are moving he (or she) is lying.  With his State of the Union Address, Mr Obama has added a new way of making that critical determination: Observe the reaction of those who would normally be outraged if they believed what the politician was saying.

The Eye of Sauron

Just playing with the Gimp

Another effort here