Tues/Weds/Obama speech open thread

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

Don’t think I can stomach listening to O’s big “Oval Office address” tonight. Please feel free to use this thread to express your thoughts/disgust/etc …

Also, am getting ready to re-up the Toldjah domain for another couple of years, plus pay for my monthly hosting services. Thanks again SO MUCH to all who have contributed to my tip jar (located on the middle part of the right side column). Every little bit helps. :)

Update: Here’s the text of President Obama’s speech.

Not even a burka could hide the idiocy of narrow-minded state Rep. Janis Baird Sontany (D-TN)

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

This is more of what happens when conservative women don’t toe the radical liberal “feminist” line:

[TN] State Republican Chairman Chris Devaney today denounced as “petty and insulting” a Democratic legislator’s statement about her Republican women colleagues.

“You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote,” said Rep. Janis Baird Sontany, D-Nashville.

The remark at a Saturday Democratic breakfast was initially reported by blogger Dru Smith Fuller. Sontany acknowledged the statement when asked and described it as “a glib, off-the-cuff remark” that “was inappropriate on my part.”

Devaney said in a GOP news release that “Rep. Sontany’s comments are very strange and definitely inappropriate.”

“Questioning the other side’s voting record is one thing, but using this verbiage to get your point across is petty and insulting,” said Devaney. “It is a bit disturbing that Rep. Sontany would speak this way about her colleagues just because she felt she was in the presence of ‘friends’.”

Sontany said in an interview that the remark came during a discussion of state-funded pre-kindergarten classes, which some Republicans have criticized. Sontany said she noted that Sumner County has the only county school system in the state with no pre-K classes. School systems must opt into the program to receive state funding.

[…]

“It was not a well-thought out remark,” said Sontany. “I did not mean to offend and, if I have offended, I am sorry.”

The classic, infamous Democrat non-apology “apology.”

Michelle Malkin had a spot-on response to this (all too common) nonsense:

Skirt checks. Bra checks. Womb checks.

What will conservative women be subjected to next?

So much for “My body, my choice,” eh, libs?

***

Heh. Andy Levy tweets: “What’s amazing is that Sontany doesn’t realize that ‘You sure can’t find out by how they vote’ is a compliment.”

Exactly, but that would mean an acceptance of a true “diversity” of opinions, which liberal “feminists” say they practice but in reality only preach.

And – just to be a little on the catty side – if we were to take Sontay’s remarks literally, well, let’s just say in a crowd of pro-lifers vs. pro-abortion types that, even without signs, it’d be pretty easy to distinguish the women who wholeheartedly embrace their femininity from the women who are repulsed by it. And we wouldn’t even have to look under anyone’s skirt, either.

Yeah, I went there.

Goracle: Stop censoring Gulf Coast coverage, but as for covering my speeches …

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

The Goracle is outraged over alleged “censorship” by BP of the Gulf Coast crisis and the company’s efforts to contain the oil spill:

These reports are deeply disturbing:

“When the operators of Southern Seaplane in Belle Chasse, La., called the local Coast Guard-Federal Aviation Administration command center for permission to fly over restricted airspace in Gulf of Mexico, they made what they thought was a simple and routine request.”

“A pilot wanted to take a photographer from The Times-Picayune of New Orleans to snap photographs of the oil slicks blackening the water. The response from a BP contractor who answered the phone late last month at the command center was swift and absolute: Permission denied.”

This behavior is completely unacceptable. Access by reporters should be as unfettered as possible. This de facto form of censorship needs to stop.

Unfortunately, The Goracle always doesn’t practice what he preaches. From 2008:

When Al Gore agreed to talk at the end of the RSA 2008 conference, the 2007 Nobel Laureate stipulated in his contract with RSA that no members of the press would be allowed inside the keynote address. Many of my colleagues in the press were put out about this, and rightly so.

Fortunately, this year I was registered as a speaker at RSA 2008, so I didn’t have my usual press pass (although the nice guardians at the press room door certainly didn’t stop me from going inside).

Since individual attendees at RSA are allowed to blog and to take photographs at the conference, I feel I was within my rights to do so.

And from 2009:

In a highly ironic move, Al Gore has barred the press from even attending his speech at the upcoming CTIA Wireless 2009 conference, the nation’s largest gathering of the wireless communications industry.

The ban only applies to people with press badges. If you’re a corporate or personal blogger or Tweeter, apparently you can get in to the 4,000-seat auditorium where the speech will be held on April 3. The wireless industry group running the conference, CTIA washed their hands of the ban, saying that it’s part of Al Gore’s standard speaking contract and that there was nothing they could do about it.

“We don’t have plans to confiscate phones or police the audience,” CTIA vice president Rob Mesirow said.

They noted that when Bill Clinton, Gore’s former boss, spoke at CTIA two years ago, there was no such press ban.

“This is strictly because of the agreement we have with Al Gore’s office,” Mesirow said.

Al Gore. Hypocrite.

Imagine that.

Re: The rumors of The Goracle having an affair, which some are speculating led to the split between he and Tipper, I really have nothing to say about that – but I have to admit I did get a tiny chuckle from this picture (note: it’s not what you think it is!). :D

(Some links via Drudge)

UK Conservative Daniel Hannan has a wake up call of sorts on Obama

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

A little over a year ago, Consevative MEP Daniel Hannan became a bit of a celebrity here in the US after a video of him blasting Prime Minister Gordon Brown during a session of the European Parliament went viral. Many of us stateside marveled at Hannan’s bold critique, seeing as that so few politicos here in the US have the brass ones to take on the ‘leader’ of this country in a way that Hannan was his.

There was only one problem, though, at the time, as some of our across-the-pond allies pointed out: Hannan was a big supporter of Barack Obama. Even with knowing that UK conservatives aren’t 100% like US conservatives, it was still a shock to many of us that he could support a candidate who was more a radical rock star who sounded like a Sunday morning “progressive” preacher/healer than a so-called “reformer.”

Well, Hannan has started to wake up some to the phony that was and is Barack Obama – even if he prefaces it with Obama’s favorite fallback excuse “Bbbbut Bush”:

I was wrong. Not that Obama is without his good points, obviously. His commitment to school choice is unfeigned. His foreign policy has been a jolly sight cheaper than McCain’s would have been. The election of a mixed-race president who opposed the Iraq war has made the USA slightly more popular.

None of these advantages, however, can make up for the single most important fact of Obama’s presidency, namely that the federal government is 30 per cent larger than it was two years ago.

This is not entirely Obama’s fault, of course. The credit crunch occurred during the dying days of the Bush administration, and it was the 43rd president who began the baleful policy of bail-outs and pork-barrel stimulus packages. But it was Obama who massively extended that policy against united Republican opposition. It was he who chose, in defiance of public opinion, to establish a state-run healthcare system. It was he who presumed to tell private sector employees what they could earn, he who adopted the asinine cap-and-trade rules, and he who re-federalised social security, thereby reversing the single most beneficial reform of the Clinton years.

These errors are not random. They amount to a comprehensive strategy of Europeanisation: Euro-carbon taxes, Euro-disarmament, Euro-healthcare, Euro-welfare, Euro-spending levels, Euro-tax levels and, inevitably, Euro-unemployment levels. Any American reader who wants to know where Obamification will lead should spend a week with me in the European Parliament. I’m working in your future and, believe me, you won’t like it.

Unsurprisingly, given his enthusiasm for corporatism at home, Obama is an unqualified supporter of the EU. “In my view there’s no Old Europe or New Europe,” he announced at his very first overseas summit, silkily repudiating Donald Rumsfelt’s distinction. “There is a united Europe. I believe in a strong Europe, and a strong European Union, and my administration is committed to doing everything we can to support you.”

Read the whole thing as Hannan blasts Obama on the foreign policy front as well.

While I’m glad to see he’s experiencing a wake up call regarding our celebrity President, I have to ask: Where the hell was he the two years Obama was campaigning for the position? Numerous respected conservatives warned that Obama would be exactly the kind of President he has been: A radical liberal who doesn’t believe he’s a citizen of America but instead a ‘citizen of the world,’ one who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism in any way, and one who will willingly sacrifice longtime alliances with countries like the UK and Israel as part of the process of extending an “open hand” to Islamofascistic countries like Iran who want to blow us and allies like Israel and the UK off the map.

Don’t know if this phrase originated here or there, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it usually is a duck. And let’s hope that the more people stateside and abroad wake up to this President’s dangerous agenda for America that next year he will be a lame duck President in the traditional sense of the term. Hey, the guy has said himself he’d rather be a “one-term” President who “gets a lot done” than a two-term President who gets very little done. Problem is, he already thinks “too little” has been done, while the rest of the country is coming to the conclusion that he – and the Democrats in Congress – has/have done way too much.

I’ll take that one term.

Oh, and welcome to our world, Mr. Hannan.