The Really Scary Part of Obama's Speech
By pilgrim Posted in 2008 — Comments (86) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Senator Obama gave a speech August 1st on the GWOT. There has been much discussion about his remarks that as POTUS he would invade Pakistan and withdraw financial aid to Pakistan if it feels Pakistan is failing to stop terrorists. I really wish, which is why I am posting this blog, that attention could be paid to the really scary part of his speech IMO.
Here is the part that had my alarm bells going off:
"No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.
Too often this Administration's approach to homeland security has been to scatter money around and avoid hard choices, or to scare Americans without telling them what to be scared of, or what to do. A Department set up to make Americans feel safer didn't even show up when bodies drifted through the streets in New Orleans. That's not acceptable.
My Administration will take an approach to homeland security guided by risk."
To me that sounds like Senator Obama truly believes the US Constitution IS a suicide pact. FISA works? No violating the civil liberties of terrorists? WTF? To me this 5th part of his strategy is indeed the most scary part of all.
Oprah thinks he's terrific. Isn't that good enough for you?
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Oprah/Obama :-)
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
of Pakistan. In their case, he IS the answer to their prayers.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
apparently he is fundamentally incapable of talking about national security without slipping in a reference to Katrina.
We'll see if it gets to the point where:
"Question Senator Obama, what is your plan to increase health insurance coverage"?
"Well, K-K-K-K-Katrina, we have to first make sure that all children are covered, D-D-D-D-Dead bodies in the street, then we have to make sure that all working poor are covered, S-S-S-S-S-SuperdomeSuperdomeSuperdome...."
The Katrina Kard Kabal has learned another way to use racism as a way to avoid addressing the reality of a situation.
Many in America heard nothing but blah, blah, blah... Bush hates black people.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
apparently he is fundamentally incapable of talking about national security without slipping in a reference to Katrina.
Mr. Obama would do better to read this before he speaks again. Were he really serious about national security, he would stop talking about Katrina and start talking about stanching the flow of immigrant Muslims into the United States.
...of expelling all Muslims - including native-born American citizens - from the United States of America. Please keep this in mind in the future when picking your links.
This is not a suggestion.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Let's not be too hard on Mac. While I disagree with most of his cite, Mac only called for border security w/ a little racial profiling.
While this thread may not be the place, we do need more discussion on the loyalty of Muslims, native and otherwise. Polls tell us that circa 10% of young Muslims here (25% in Britain) think terror-for-Allah is a good gig. The 10% doesn't worry me nearly as much as the 90% that doesn't pound them into the ground the way, e.g., the vast majority of pro-lifers does the would-be clinic bombers.
Obama is qualified for President, President of his local chapter of Toastmasters. That's about it. I'll be rooting for his nomination by the Dems.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Fred can have a punching bag for an opponent.
if you're referencing National Review's 2004 headline asking the Democrats to please nominate Howard Dean, then I appreciate the thought. The Democrats will start calling the Dukakis candidacy "the good old days."
The FISA court does work and if the president thinks he needs more flexibility, then he should go to Congress and have them amend the law to give him that flexibility. He should not and cannot amend a law on his own or just choose to ignore it. While I certainly don't want to extend our constitutional protections to terrorist, I do want and expect our president to live by his oath to defend it. And, quite frankly that would be a political winner for the president and the party also. Can you imagine the beating that Congressmen and Senators would take if they refused sensible changes to FISA as we wage the war against terrorist murderers?
FISA does not work. It is an antiquated law enacted in 1978 before the internet and fiber optics and technological changes that make life completely different now than they were in 1978.
Also haven't seen a beating yet of those votes so far this week that have prevented Heather Wilson's bill on reforming FISA to be brought to the floor.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
that the President should determine which laws are pertinent and which ones he can discard because they are antiquated?
I'll make note of this the next time a Democrat is President and you guys are howling about some law he violated.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
there are no laws that trump the Constitution, and according to my last reading the President and the President alone is the Commander in Chief. Spying on the enemy during war time or in this case an authorization of military force is an essential part of being Commander in Chief. I don't know any previous commander in chiefs that ever went before any court to ask permission before spying on the enemy.
Why do you think FISA was implemented in the first place?
Do you believe that the President should be given free rein to eavesdrop on domestic communications provided he says it is for national security?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
to re-elect and/or punish his party. There is no free rein.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
when all of the domestic telephone calls were using wire and all the international calls were wireless. Today just the opposite is true, and FISA needs to reflect today's technology.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
why it was devised however if it was intended to be used in war time, it is unconstitutional. No law trumps the President's powers as Commander in Chief, any law that does is unconstitutional and in all prior instances FISA was used in peace time not in a state of war. To say that the President must ask for a judge's permission before listening in on the enemy in war time is beyond ludicrous.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
that Congress has never passed a law that usurped the Executives Constitutional perogatives?
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
the lawyers think so.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
"Can you imagine the beating that Congressmen and Senators would take if they refused sensible changes to FISA as we wage the war against terrorist murderers?"
I submit this Article
"The Democrats are, typically, more concerned about the “rights” of foreign terrorists and the danger of innocent Americans being listened to than the danger of missing intelligence the interception of which might prevent another 9-11."
1. Your post assumes that the President is wiretapping citizens, which is unconstitutional with exceptions for war time, etc. So far, there is no evidence of domestic wire tapping. The only information that is that the intercepted calls were to foreign numbers.
2. Other than Anna Diggs Taylor, who was making a political statement, not a legal statement, the courts have ruled that the wiretapping was unconstitutional. The fact is, ADT is a political beast with affiliations with liberal agenda-driven groups, so her ruling was rather easy to toss. We'll see when this case gets to the Supreme Court.
The presumption seems to be that the President has NOT protected the Constitution (...I do want and expect our president to live by his oath to defend it.) I think he has, and the attacks are simply stupid, partisan carping. But we should see soon.
The administration has submitted proposed changes. We should see shortly whether Congress feels that the changes are sensible. Or we will see if Congress is sensible. I almost hope that the Dems run true to form and turn it down. Let them defend that in 2008.
Your post assumes that the President is wiretapping citizens, which is unconstitutional with exceptions for war time, etc. So far, there is no evidence of domestic wire tapping. The only information that is that the intercepted calls were to foreign numbers.
You do realize the calls originated domestically, right? That's why FISA applies. If it were a purely international call domestic wiretapping laws wouldn't apply.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
since the calls were to numbers outside the US they were not domestic calls - they were international calls regardless of where they originated
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan
These are precisely the sort of calls that FISA was set up to deal with.
If the call was completely domestic the FBI would be required to go to a normal judge and get a warrant for a wiretap and the demand for evidence would be fairly high.
However FISA was set up to provide an exception to international calls where a special judge would issue the warrant based on a lowered requirement to provide evidence.
Without FISA those international calls would be no different than a domestic to domestic call.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
There have been umpteen congressional hearings and that guy with the face built into a frown did not agree with what you just said. I think you are blowing smoke out of your nether regions.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Could you point to the case where the courts said these were not domestic calls?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I never said courts. AFAIK, it has only been into one courtroom with one moonbat judge.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
it was never intended to be used in war time, and if it was it is unconstitutional. The Constitution is clear. The President is the Commander in Chief. Spying on the enemy is an essential part of warfare, and the President is the head war maker, not some FISA judge. He does NOT need anyone's permission to spy on the enemy in war time, no matter what FISA says...
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/nsa/dojnsa11906wp.pdf
this is a thirty page defense and you will see every concept I mentioned referenced over and over and over again. The authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda gave the President the authority to wage war on Al Qaeda. Spying on Al Qaeda is a necessary function of war fare. The Commander in Chief is the President and the President alone. The CinC does not need anyone's permission to spy on the enemy during war time, least of all some judge.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
Not international.
Clinton did massive and arbitrary NSA suveillance of internatinoal calls in his Admin, and no one nutted out on it.
There are few if any good motives I can see for democrats to consistently lie and misframe this discussion.
And the bizarre and untrue claims of perjury being fabricated against the AG is simply a transparent attempt to out still more secret intel programs, in further assistance tot he enemy.
I no longer belive your side is operating in good faith in this war at all, rather, it seems very clear from their action and the very words of the DNC leadership, that defeat is their goal and greatest hope.
just not true. Calls not involving US persons, regardless of where they originate or end aren't covered by FISA.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
would the FBI know that a call involves a US citizen or not?
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
I don't think they originated domestically and frankly it doesn't matter. FISA does not trump the Commander in Chief power spelled out clearly in the Constitution. The Commaner in Chief DOES NOT need anyone's permission to spy on the enemy.
do you mean that in order for the feds to tap a call from a known terrorist calling from Pakistan to my cell phone they need to go get a FISA judge to say ok? I don't think so, I don't care why a terrorist is calling my phone - I want the NSA or the FBI or someone listening in. My security is enhanced by them listening to foreign terrorists calling into the US. Anyone with a problem with knowing NSA is on the line when Osama calls to wish them a happy birthday is likely a terrorist or a traitor.
I don't think you really want to follow this line of argument to it's logical conclusion (or at least I can't see it getting much support around here). You're saying the State should be allowed to violate privacy because if you're not a criminal you have nothing to worry about - that's the dictionary definition of a slippery slope!
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
"It is important to understand, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Bzzzzzzt.
That would be Clinton's DAG. Apparently, you missed the consistency.
Now please educate me on how this administration amended the law or ignored it?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
both Democrat and Republican - the ones on the relevant committee (intelligence, I suppose, although I can't recall for sure).
But even if he hadn't, it would have compromised the program to have a full congressional debate.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
Obama got it right. There are no shortcuts to Protecting America. We have seen too many slight of hands in the name of protecting American or fighting terror, all at the expense of our civil liberties. Eroding these liberties make the terrorists win in the end.
Hey, you got the last one. :)
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Hey, I just had a brilliant idea.
How about auctioning off harpooning rights for a time period. You could raise a ton of cash doing that & the fun could be shared by all. Well, at least the "all" with a few extra bucks.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'll bid for the right if the term "Harpoon" also includes the Navies anti-ship "Harpoon" cruise missile.
"The only way to negotiate with your enemy, is with your knee on his chest and your knife at his throat." - Anon.
Did the Axis powers "win" when FDR interned hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans?
Did the Confederacy "win" when Lincoln supsended Habeas Corpus?
Did the Triple Entente or the Communists or whoever "win" when Eugene Debs was thrown in jail?
Did the Soviets "win" when J Edgar Hoover was orchestrating Black Bag opertions during the Red Scare?
The reality is that previous administrations have "eroded civil liberites" to an exponentially greater degree than everything Bush has done put together, and guess what- our enemies didn't "win."
In fact think about this- in total seriousness I am proud of the degree of restraint to which Bush has shown in conducting this war on terror WITHOUT disrupting my life or my civil liberties in any meaningful way. Really- how is my or your life any different then 9/10/01? Other than having to take off my shoes at the airport I really can't think how. Oh, I guess if I want to call Pakistan the NSA might listen to me. So yeah, you are right, it's the end of the Republic.
The flaw in your argument is that (from the very little I know of you) YOUR life or civil liberties would not have been much affected by the historical instances you cite.
(Obviously this comment is made on the baseless assumption that you are not Japanese-American or, more generally, a criminal suspect, but as a general point, ie. most people will not feel an impact on their civil liberties just because Constitutional rights have been denied to some other minority, I think it stands)
The point is that you could take all of the actions by the Bush admin that supposedly violate civil liberties and they are comparatively a speck of dust compared to the far greater violation of civil liberties (supsending Habeas Corpus, putting 100,000+ of our own citizens in concentration camps, etc) that has happened from time to time under various predecessors of Bush (including certain liberal heroes) during wartime, and not only did our country survive, but we recognized where things went too far, fixed it and we continue to enjoy near limitless freedom today.
If you really believe that the NSA listening to your calls to Pakistan, or the fact that a few Arabs were held on immigration charges perhaps longer than they should have been in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, or the FBI being able to see what library books you read has us on some sort of slipperly slope to fascism, you are an idiot and sadly you have no faith in America to ultimately get it right in the end, as we always have.
I don't think anything in my comment suggested that I don't have faith in America's ability to "get it right in the end" - indeed, I believe I'm participating right now (albeit in a very small way) in one of the mechanisms through which it can do this. That said, that old chestnut about the price of liberty being eternal vigilance is particularly applicable - the argument that "it's been worse in the past, so don't worry about the problems we have today" just doesn't wash for me! It's not a slippery slope, but it's a slope nonetheless...
one person, known to you personally, who has had their civil liberties trampled on. Name one person that you know to be in the re-education camps you have been predicting for 6 years. Name one person that has been "disappeared" by the evil Cheney/Halliburton black helicopters. Just one. Anyone, one, just one will do.
This is just more left wing, tinfoil-hat brigade, nonsense and it is a perfect example of the results of decades of liberal progressive education where "transgender studies" and "multiculturalism" has replaced history and reading.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
ok, maybe not. How about Tom Delay.....
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
Boctaoe,
I would be interested to see your list of civil liberties taken away from you, your wife, your kids et al..... or are you already in jail somewhere?
"Chance favors the prepared mind"
He wants "a more resilient homeland." Not a safer one. Not a more prepared one. A more resilient one for after the inevitable happens on his watch. Genius.
I am far far far into the liberty over safety camp, but this is just a stupid thing to say. You can be extremely free within the US if you're super-vigilant on the borders and entry. It's not just either being unsafe or having Big Brother. There are good choices to be made, I don't think Obama could make them.
Obama said: "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. ... We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary."
Hmm. Exactly the attitude we need toward enforcement of immigration laws, labor laws (i.e., not hiring illegal workers on terms that are not permitted for employees who are citizens or legal immigrants: wages and benefits, safety, and other protections), border security, and a host of other issues related to illegal immigration.
I wonder if Obama will apply the same strict standard he demands in this speech to other issues of importance to Americans.
It's only when you're destroying America that you get those legal protections. Kinda explains some Democrat politicians, for that matter.
As a more libertarian-minded person, I understand some of the concerns of the Patriot Act, but a lot of these also border on absolute hysteria... if you're really that worried about some of these programs, then to shop at Amazon or to use Google would be rather hypocritical. After all, unless Carl Levin's started an FBI file on me, I'm sure either one of those companies knows far more about me than the federal government does :)
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke
He's lurching into Howard Dean territory. Today at Drudge...
"Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance'... 'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians' Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that'... "
He better take an August vacation ASAP or he's not going to be a candidate much longer.
Being reported now on Drudge...
"Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons 'in any circumstance'... 'I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,' Obama said, with a pause, 'involving civilians' Then he quickly added, 'Let me scratch that'... "
Well, lets see...Clinton/Obama in 08....a good snap shot of how THEY would defend us.
...just as soon as they're read their Miranda rights.
Sorry, but I'm more qualified to be POTUS than this lightweight.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
The responsibilities of the president as commander in chief are also defined in the constitution. I would like someone to ask Obama, or those who agree with him, if he had to make a hard choice between his duties as commander in chief to defend the country and some civil rights protections, which would he decide? Either way, he must violate his duties to the constitution. All of our past presidents have always given priority to the physical defense of the nation before civil rights considerations, is this tradition to now change? Can't the courts evaluate the CiCs decisions in their own good time? For my part, I expect the president to first be commander in chief, and second a constitutional scholar. Otherwise there is precious little purpose in even having a president.
No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.
Hmmm.... like.... IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT?
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
been violated. We have a court system for that.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
liberals love fighting wars wherever we AREN'T fighting wars.
Fighting in a war in Iraq? In 2004 it was "we should be fighting in Iran". last year it was "redeploy to Okinawa" and the rest of the Arabian Gulf.
Then it was North Korea was the greatest threat to the US in the libs second debate. Now we have to attack Syria and PAKISTAN?
They know that they are lying when they are saying it- I wish someone would call them on their idiocy and hypocrisy.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
I'm torn between lightweight and empty suit.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
to death. He's a well-spoken, fatuous dingbat. The thought of him as POTUS or Veep is truly terrifying. That the Dems take him seriously as a candidate...mindboggling. I think Rush is right; Obama is purely a foil for Her Evilness.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
"My Administration will take an approach to homeland security guided by risk."
Does that mean that in the name of political correctness, multiculturalism, and universal civil liberties he wants to hobble the intelligence community to keep our country in danger at the highest level of risk?
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
No. It means that he won't reject NYC's request for funds because they didn't fill out their paperwork correctly.
You can't be basing your opinion from the context that Obama made the statement of risk being the guiding factor. Right before that he warned of the abuse of civil liberties by not strictly following the FISA court.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
attacks, when they also muse about what we did to make enemies hate us and how we can change policies so they will like us, rather than kill them. They screech at daddy Bush making them, like children facing bullies, face reality and they screech at our allies to do more, rather than get angry at the enemy.
They are pathetic.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/pilgrim/2007/aug/03/its_time_to_get_out_no...
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Senator Obama's remarks are yet another reason why liberals have no business being in power during a war. Between his remarks and the efforts of Demos to pass legislation which would allow people who report suspicious activity to be sued it is a wonder that anyone takes these pinheads seriously.
In a related sidenote...Last month I posted on here about some suspicious activity I observed at my local Walmart. I had observed some people of middle eastern apperance purchasing disposable cell phones and behaving in a very strange manner while doing so. One of my brothers gave this information to connections he had and it was forwarded to the Feds. I just found out today that what I reported is being dealt with very seriously. It appears that these folks had bought 900 cell phones in about a week from my particular Walmart. Let me repeat that...THEY HAD PURCHASED 900 DISPOSABLE CELL PHONES FROM ONE WALMART IN A TIME PERIOD OF ABOUT ONE WEEK. Question: Why would any small group of people (less than 10) require 900 cell phones and why did they come out to a suburban community to buy them instead of going to any of the other Walmarts in the major metropolitan area I live near?
Now if Obama and his ilk had their way, I would have been strongly discouraged from reporting this information. If I thought that I could be sued for reporting my suspicions, would I have done so? I would like to say yes, but I don't know. It is time for a serious response to the inanity of the Demos on the issues of national security and the war against jihadism. They cannot be taken seriously and their dangerously foolish ideas must be exposed for what they are. National security and the waging of war is serious business and requires a serious candidate. The reality is that the Demos do not have one.
This is why Obama needs to put some of his enthusiastic young volunteers on the 'net to monitor foreign news. Benazir Bhutto is working with Musharraf to restore democracy in Pakistan. Once again, someone who should be celebrated by feminists (but is not) is doing something to improve our world. We cannot overstate the need for Musharraf to transition the nation back towards something like democracy before someone facilitates an Islamist coup.
is that he gave a really good speech. If he took out about 5 stupid lefty lines from that speech, it would be very convincing to the clueless masses in the middle.
Of course this is just one speech, we know he can read and look good doing it.
Molon Labe!
I heard the word somewhere - - - what was it?
Oh yes, the word was GRAVITAS! Every left wing nut job pundit and mainstream media reporter simultaneously found this word to describe George W. Bush. "No gravitas," they said.
So where is the word from the liberal press and the liberal nutroots when it comes to Obama not knowing his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to much of anything except setting base salaries for dog catchers in Illinois?
there apparently are people who think he is the answer to their prayers.