No Runny Eggs

President Obama is headed to Russia next week.  The visit is planned to allow discussions on a host of topics: trade, North Korea, missile defense etc.  Amongst the laundry list of issues, I find one group’s request to be most interesting.  From Reuters:

CEOs use Obama visit to press Russia on rule of law

I suppose it would make sense to talk to Russia about business relationships.  Of particular interest to this group of CEOs is this:

“Stability and sanctity of contracts — this is what worries us, given what happened to some Western firms in Russia,” said an industry source with a major U.S. firm.

Come on!  You’re kidding me right?  President Obama is supposed to teach, coach, lecture the Russian government on the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts?  Let’s see….

Automobile Industry – I don’t remember the rule of law or the sanctity of contracts being followed as bond holders were summarily removed from their preferred lender positions so that the Obama could “not run the auto industry.”

Financial Industry – I don’t remember the rule of law or the sanctity of contracts being followed as companies were told they had to take bail out funds or would be subject to audits, forced contracted compensation to be paid back or forced “healthy” institutions to absorb “toxic” institutions thereby making them a toxic institution

Credit Card Industry – I don’t remember the rule of law or the sanctity of contracts being followed as mortgage companies were forced to provide credit to a broader population without regard for their ability to repay the credit.

While never close friends, The Russians used to listen to the United States due both to our military capabilities and our financial strength.  I’ve got to believe that any sentence in Russia that begins with “President Obama says…” ends with a roomful of Russian belly laughs.

Today’s headlines:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has arrived in Baghdad

Um, did someone forget to tell joltin’ Joe:

The vice president’s visit comes just two days after the United States withdrew troops from Iraqi cities.

Now that the troops have gone, Joe gets to play with Iraq:

The White House on Tuesday appointed Biden to oversee Iraq policy.

I guess even President Obama recognizes it’s not safe to let Biden play while there’s live ammunition around!

In honor of Joe:

H/T the Athletic Shoe

As a reasonably avid fisherman, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, or told someone else, “You should have been here last week!”  In fishing, this usually means one of two things.  Either the fish were really biting the previous week or you’re trying to convince the other fisherman that you’re not completely inept.  Interestingly, this phrase is also applicable in politics.

Glenn Garvin from the Miami Herald lays out the explanation of events leading to the Honduran “Coup.”  Garvin doesn’t really provide any information that hasn’t been explained elsewhere, at least in terms of the events. He does however, correctly refocus the debate from what happened last week to what happened in the week(s) prior to last week:

Here’s a question for all these new-found defenders of Honduran democracy: Where were you last week? Perhaps if some of these warnings about sticking to the constitution had been addressed to President Zelaya, the Honduran army would still be in the barracks where it belongs.

Garvin correctly calls out the United Nations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama asking why, if they are so concerned about the constitutionality of the new President of Honduras, they weren’t raising concerns about the activities, clearly unconstitutional, of President Zelaya during the previous weeks. 

While Garvin doesn’t address it, I would also ask why, if President Obama doesn’t believe the US should “meddle” in other country’s affairs, he has chosen to insert himself in this situation.  Let’s see, Iran, don’t meddle, Honduras, meddle.  Cuba, don’t meddle, Israel, meddle.  I’m beginning to wonder if Obama’s “don’t meddle” policy only applies to countries that have a current or an heir apparent dictator at the helm?

Like in fishing, “You should have been here last week” has multiple meanings in politics.  It can either mean, “Things went really well last week,” or it could mean that the person you’re conveying the sentiment to is inept and should have been paying attention to and engaged in the events of the previous week.

From the people of Honduras, “Hey, President Obama, you should have been here last week!”

During his most recent “U.S. apology tour of the world,” President Obama made this statement to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega’s diatribe on the U.S.:

“To move forward, we cannot let ourselves be prisoners of past disagreements. I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old. Too often, an opportunity to build a fresh partnership of the Americas has been undermined by stale debates. We’ve all heard these arguments before.”

Again, the person who the Left claims is the smartest President ever seems to have some challenges working with math.

First, according to the alleged certificate of live birth that he has posted, Obama was born in August of 1961.  My history books show the the Bay of Pigs occurred in April of 1961.  It would seem like his living presence missed the event he referenced by nearly 4 months.  Before you claim that Obama was “In Utero” and therefore, assuming a 9 month gestation, he would be somewhat right, remember that Obama has shown through his legislation and votes that a baby is not alive, or even a life of any kind until after it is born and than survives attempts by the delivering physician to kill it during the first few moments after being separated from its mother.

Another problem with Obama’s math is this:  Obama seems to believe that because he wasn’t born he holds no responsibility for the specific event.  He somehow separates himself personally from the fact that he is THE representative of the United States and what it stands for.  If Obama can do this, shouldn’t the same hold true for other Americans?

In 1961, with a few exceptions, you need to be 21 to vote for elected office.  I would proffer that using Obama’s logic, anyone who was not yet 21 in April of 1961 had no responsibility for the Bay of Pigs.  After all, they weren’t able vote in the administration that launched the attack.  Obviously, anyone born after April of 1961 also would not be responsible for the Bay of Pigs.  Roll the calendar forward and the extension of Obama’s logic suggests that only people who today, are 69 or older could even possibly be responsible for the Bay of Pigs.

Bear with me as I walk through this next part.  The 1960 election determined the administration of the Bay of Pigs.  In 1960 there were 170 million people in the US, approximately 65% were of voting age.  Of that, approximately 64 million voted.  Of those that voted, approximately 50% voted for the Kennedy administration.  Today, approximately 12% of the population are 69 or older.  If you do the math, it turns out that just 3.5% of the US population, alive today, could be responsible for the Bay of Pigs.  With a current population of approximately 303 million people, only 10.6 million Americans alive today could be responsible for the Bay of Pigs.

60 million people voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin in the last election.  60 million people voted against having Barack Obama as President.  While we can argue as to what degree, 60 million people voted for a smaller government with less interference than what we have with President Obama.  If President Obama can routinely ignore 60 million voters whom he has sworn to represent, why is he worried about what some third world dictator and thug thinks about decisions made nearly 50 years ago that may, in the best case, have been enabled by a mere 10.6 million voters?

The answer of course, is all to apparent.  While President Obama isn’t able to do simple math of any kind, he is able to do the simplest of math.  In President Obama’s mind, 10.6 million people aren’t the issue, 60 million people don’t matter.  For Obama, all history, US and otherwise, begins and ends with him.  If an event happened before he could be accountable for it, it didn’t happen.  If an event happened when he could be held accountable for it and he can find a way to avoid accountability, than George Bush did it.  In the mind of Obama, the only number that matters is the loneliest number, 1.  Obama’s comment had nothing to do with the impact on the US, the country he is supposed to represent.  His comment was all about a potential reflection on him, personally.

The only math that President Obama has successfully mastered is the function of 1.

One week ago, the President of Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, blamed the world financial crisis on “whitey”:

“this was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of people that are white, blue-eyed, that before the crisis looked like they knew everything about economics.”

He further removed any misunderstanding about the nature of his comments when he added:

“I’m not acquainted with any black banker,” Lula said. “The part of humanity that’s responsible should pay for the crisis.”

Today, President Obama praised President Lula:

“That’s my man, right here, love this guy. He’s the most popular politician on Earth. It’s because of his good looks,” Obama said.

I saw Obama greet the Queen of England, I didn’t hear him make a comment about how well she looked.  Obama met Sarkozy and didn’t mention his looks.  Obama met Brown last month and didn’t mention his looks. 

Why would Obama mention Lula’s looks? 

I’m left with two possibilities.  With his comment, either Obama was saying:

Lula, you’re speaking truth to power, brother.  The man is just trying to keep us down!

or he was saying:

You can tell by looking at me that I didn’t cause this problem.  But, that guy I inherited this all from?  He was sure enough a honky cracker!

The problem is that I’m not really fluent in victimese so I’m puzzled on the exact translation.

Earlier this week, President Obama said that the United States should open discussions with the Taliban.  You know, the folks who find honor killings and the mutilation of women fun sport.  Today, Vice President Joe Biden attempted to explain the Administration’s new view on the Taliban:

Biden makes his insight sound as if it’s new, unique, somehow profound. However, we know Joe is a consummate plagiarist, prone to taking other people’s ideas and stating them as his own. His Taliban position is just another such plagiarized thought. Note here how way back in 1977, John Landis and David Zucker first submitted the idea of segmenting your opponents into identifiable groups:

I wonder if Joe Biden will be able to get the Taliban sorted into the right groups? My bet is that he’ll find some that “care” and “bomb” sorted into the wrong group, at least on his first try.

Al-Qaeda deputy calls for strikes on Israel