Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts

Friday, March 13, 2015

Obama's JV Team & Al’s Used Car Lot

Jersey McJones
A couple, let’s call them Pat and Mel, are having a marital spat over buying a car. Pat really, really wants that car, no matter the cost, but Mel points out they don't need it. Pat heads down to Big Al's Used Car Lot anyway, and the salesmen see an eager buyer who hands them concessions before a deal is even close. They're licking their chops. Their car lot has fallen on hard times, but a few patsies like Pat, and they are back in business!

As Pat is being worked over in the showroom by the salesmen, Mel storms in, marriage license in hand and reminds everyone that the marriage, along with the bank account, is 50/50. Pat may really want that car, but Mel sees it as a bad deal and is prepared to do everything to kibosh it if the terms are no good.

Question: 

Do Mel's actions help the dealership pocket the money for an overpriced lemon that will blow up once it leaves the lot? Or do Mel’s actions increase Pat’s bargaining power by putting the salesmen on notice that he won’t put up with any crap? 

Obama's JV Team at the Persian Bazaar

Of course, we’re really talking about Senator Tom Cotton's open letter to the virulently anti-American Iranian dictatorship. His simple constitutional tutorial has thrown the Democrat establishment into paroxysms of sputtering outrage.

Obama's White House put an Orwellian "Up is down," "War is peace" spin on it, which the stenographers in the press swallowed whole:
The White House has characterized Cotton's primer on America's constitutional form of government as a "rush to war." (AP News)
Obama, noting that some in Iran also want no part of any deal, said "I think it's somewhat ironic that some members of Congress want to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition." (AP News)
That last quote is particularly galling, since it is President Obama and Secretary Kerry who are enabling the Iranian hardliners.  Cotton is the one putting Iran’s hardliners on notice that if Obama and Kerry come back from the Persian bazaar with nothing more than a pocketful of magic beans, the deal is off.

Harry Reid added his howl to the chorus...
"Republicans don't know how to do anything other than juvenile political attacks against the president," the 75-year-old Reid said with the 37-year-old Cotton listening.
"Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander-in-chief while empowering the ayatollahs," Reid said.  (AP News)
Nonsense. Obama handing the ayatollahs billions of dollars in exchange for the privilege of sitting down at the table and talking with them is what empowers them. Democrats are dangerous, moreso because the press and their voter base unquestioningly lap up all this Orwellian propaganda. What is it about leftists who rightly excoriate the stinking Saudi Wahhabists, but go all goo goo eyed over the Shia religious terrorists?

Iran's Fascist Regime Defends President Obama:
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif responded via state media, dismissing the letter as a "propaganda ploy" and noting that many international deals are "mere executive agreements." He suggested the senators were undermining not only the prospective deal with Iran but other international agreements as well. (CBS News)
I'm not going to waste valuable Western Hero real estate on fascist propaganda from blustering Iranian pantloads, but suffice it to say the Iranian dictators are ignorant of our constitutional form of government. The US Senate, whether controlled by Harry Reid and the Dems or Mitch McConnell and the Repubs, is not a "political pressure group." It is clear the Iranians are terrified the adults will step in before they can finish shaking down the naifs. 

Senator Cotton's Open Letter to the Iranian Dictators

Here is the text of Senator Cotton’s "provocative" letter that has the leftwing propaganda machine bellowing black smoke as it kicks into full outrage mode:
An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution—the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices—which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then—perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.
(Source:  Senator Tom Cotton)
We need less shriveled up Harry Reids, Diane Feinsteins and Nancy Pelosis, and more Tom Cottons.

See Also:
Five Times Democrats Undermined GOP Presidents with Foreign Governments
Treaties v Executive Agreements: When does Congress get a Vote?

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Strong Horse, Dead Horse, Wagging Dogs, Sharpened Razors


As usual, Mark Steyn nails it...
The belated dispatch of Osama testifies to what the United States does well – elite warriors, superbly trained, equipped to a level of technological sophistication no other nation can match.

Everything else surrounding the event (including White House news management so club-footed that one starts to wonder darkly whether its incompetence is somehow intentional) embodies what the United States does badly. (Mark Steyn – OC Register)
Two questions trouble thinking Americans:

1. Why did we get Osama Bin Laden when we did?
2. Is President Obama purposely screwing things up?

We Got Him!
There are many corollaries to the first question: Was Osama already dead, and we just held that knowledge in our back pocket to wait for the opportune time? Did the raid even really happen, or was it faked?  Is Osama still alive?

Al Qaeda answered the last question in the negative, essentially confirming the official story.
“Occam’s Razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects” (Wikipedia)

Occam's Razor says the most plausible answer is the official story. Intelligence has been working this for years, and the time became ripe a month or so ago. That doesn't disprove other theories, it's just that this is the most plausible one.

What do you get when you take a community organizer from Chicago...

The second question can also be explained by Occam’s razor. Barack Obama had nothing in his past experience, training, or education that even remotely qualified him to be president, so his poor performance is no surprise.

He compounded our nation’s ills by surrounding himself with pointy-headed intellectuals who share his embarrassing poverty of real-world experience. National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon may be a fine man, but his foreign policy experience consists of being a lawyer on the periphery of US diplomacy. The administration is full of people like him.  No wonder President Obama is screwing everything up.

Hanlon’s Razor also comes to mind…
“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” (Wikipedia)
This paragraph of the Wikipedia article is also instructive…
A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933:
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities.
Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"
I’ll leave it to you to decide if the paragraph fits, and if so, which part.