Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Community Organizer in Chief & Sidekick Muttley Doing Fine

by Smitty (h/t Melanie Morgan)

Protests against the steaming pile of health care legislation were conducted in such diverse places as:(interestingly, news.google.com returns 0 of these links--thanks, comatose media sycophants!)

And that was just the vote to squeeze that loaf on the Senate floor to admire its scatalogical splendor.

Now, Muttley the Attorney General is facing blowback from New York City about the KSM trial.
The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, a diverse group of 9/11 victims, family members, first responders, active and reserve members of the military, veterans, and concerned Americans, is holding a November 24th press conference to discuss the details of their December 5th rally protesting the plan to bring the 9/11 terrorist conspirators to trial in New York City.

The Coalition formed to fight the decision of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to try the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York City’s federal court, effectively giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens while endangering the safety of all New Yorkers.
It's almost as if the actual people of New York want the KSM trial as badly as the actual people of Chicago wanted the 2016 Olympics. Don't they know that there will be copious economic stimulus involved? Lots of billable hours, bread and legal circus for all?

I voted for Ross Perot, the outsider, in '92. Looking back, I've often wondered if his blunt style would have ground things to a halt, had we the tubey-webs at the time to amplify the support for un-b0rking our country.

Now, we have a slick, cerebral, well-connected POTUS who is managing to grind things to a halt through serial asshattery. One views the thought of 36 more months of this tripe with an emotion somewhere between academic interest and morbid curiousity. What bogosity will next week bring?

One sincerely prays for BHO's physical safety, and that of his family. He must live to see every false, un-American aspect of his thought fully repudiated. However, his political demise cannot arrive soon enough. The BigHollywood.com dumpster dive isn't likely to deliver anything substantial. BHO's sidekick Muttley, was enamored of the veterinarian's daughter and sings a fine soprano. He lacks the sack to do his godforsaken job. He irresponsibly misinterprets the Law of War for political purposes, while paying ACORN scant heed.

You could not have sold a script for the events of 2009 to a Hollywood studio. It would have seemed too outlandish. Really bad reality TV is fine for its fans, but there is too much at stake for the country. I've no memory of there ever being a protest against bringing legislation to the floor of the Senate. Also, I've never heard of this kind of a planned protest for a trial. We need a real administration.


  1. "Un-borking our country"?

    I thought we *wanted* to Bork the country. It's what Reagan would have wanted.

  2. This is some of the best dictionizing I've seen in a while. Asshattery, un-b0rking, tubey-webs, bogosity (possibly a real word?). A true tour de force, Smitty, Congrats.

  3. "the plan to bring the alleged 9/11 terrorist conspirators to trial in New York City."

    There. Fixed that for ya.

    "He irresponsibly misinterprets the Law of War for political purposes"

    The "Law of War" is irrelevant. Congress hasn't declared war since 1941, that war ended long ago, and none of the alleged conspirators are German or Japanese in any case.

    In the instant case, Congress has not only not declared war, but has voted "no" when offered declarations of war for its consideration, and has included "this is NOT a declaration of war" language in its "authorizations to use force."

    Furthermore, the timeframes of prospective casus belli for a declaration of war precede Barack Obama's time in the US Senate, let alone his time in the White House, and it was a Republican House majority and (within one seat in either direction at any given time) Senate plurality/majority which chose to refrain from declaring, nay, refuse in the face of proffered legislation to declare, war.

    In other words, from a legal standpoint, the US is plainly, simply and indisputably not at war, period -- and it's not at war because Republicans demanded that it not be at war.

    Why should Barack Obama break the law now in order to give Republicans what they could have had for the asking then, but refused to take even when it was shoved at them?

  4. @Kn@ppster,
    Great rebuttal, a bi-partisan indictment of everything that's gone on since the War Powers Resolution of 1973, no, the Korean...whatever-it-was.

    Past the sophistries, though, there is the existential fact of people planning protest against these and the other decadent mental gymnastics that have corrupted our government.