Didn't y'all gun nuts used to worship poor Colin Powell.  I guess he
ain't yo nigga no mo?

The problem is, after dissing poor Colin, and your RNC Chair Michael
Steele, where are you gonna find any more tokens to color your
brightness?  An all-white, predominantly male "party", doesn't speak
of American togetherness, instead it reeks of skinhead pseudohomo
biker love, something you probably know way too much for the rest of
us innocents to be exposed to.

You're a sick man, Scott Koplin.  I hope one those fellow skinheads
bites it right off.

OBAMA TO IRAN: LET THEM EAT ICE CREAM

by Ann Coulter
June 24, 2009

On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell, waiting to
see who wins before picking a side.

Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently
fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was
declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing. (ACORN must be
involved.)

Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the loon
Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, "may not be
as great as advertised."

Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the
streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to the
"boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.

Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've seen in
Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" -- peace be upon him --  
"that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about
the election."

Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hitler as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's
with Obama?

Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the
protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five
speeds in reverse.

You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher
than you are.

More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling
power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask
why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with
such violence."

But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the
Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign
policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes
"lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")

As our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) explained,
"It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen
as meddling."

You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in
Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not
crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they
discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side. (It
also wouldn't do much for Al Franken in Minnesota.)

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the
streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death
ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going
out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran, like
the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade."

If it were true that a U.S. president should stay neutral between
freedom-loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama
speaking in support of the protesters now? Are liberals no longer worried
about the parade of horribles they claimed would ensue if the U.S. president
condemned the mullahs?

Obama's tough talk this week proves that his gentle words last week about
Ahmadinejad and Iran's "supreme leader" (peace be upon him) constituted, at
best, spinelessness and, at worst, an endorsement of the fraud.

Moreover, if the better part of valor is for America to stand neutral
between freedom and Islamic oppression, why are liberals trying to credit
Obama's ridiculous Cairo speech for emboldening the Iranian protesters?

The only reason that bald contradiction doesn't smack you in the face is
that it is utterly preposterous that Obama's Cairo speech accomplished
anything -- anything worthwhile, that is. Not even the people who say that
believe it.

The only reaction to Obama's Cairo speech in the Middle East is that the
mullahs probably sighed in relief upon discovering that the U.S. president
is a coward and an imbecile.

Two weeks ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was exulting over
the "free and fair" national election in Lebanon, in which the voters threw
out Hezbollah and voted in the "U.S.-supported coalition." (Apparently
support from America is not deemed the vote-killer in Lebanon that it
allegedly is in Iran.)

To justify his Times-expensed airfare to Beirut, Friedman added some local
color, noting that "more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George
Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 ... this free election would not
have happened."

That's what Lebanese voters said.

But Friedman also placed a phone call to a guy at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace -- which he didn't have to go to Lebanon for -- to get a
quote supporting the ludicrous proposition that Obama's Cairo speech was
responsible for the favorable election results in Lebanon.

"And then here came this man (Obama)," Mr. Carnegie Fund said, "who came to
them with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and
dignity and economic progress and education, and this person indicated that
this little prison that people are living in here was not the whole world.
That change was possible."

I think the fact that their Muslim brethren are now living in freedom in a
democratic Iraq might have made the point that "change was possible" and
"this little prison" is "not the whole world" somewhat more forcefully than
a speech apologizing for Westerners who dislike the hijab.

Obama -- and America -- are still living off President Bush's successes in
the war on terrorism. For the country's sake, may those successes outlast
Obama's attempt to dismantle them.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106

Change I can believe in.

Dennis

 "Officials Say It Would Reassert Power To Hold Terror Suspects
Indefinitely"

 BUSH LIVES!

Obama's issues crumbling
By Dick Morris
Posted: 06/09/09 04:51 PM [ET]
At last, there is convincing evidence that Obama's poll numbers may be
descending to earth. While his approval remains high - and his personal
favorability is even higher - the underlying numbers suggest that a decline
may be in the offing. Even as he stands on his pedestal, the numbers under
his feet are crumbling.

According to a Rasmussen poll, more voters now trust Republicans more than
Democrats to handle the economy, by a margin of 45-39. Scott Rasmussen notes
that "this is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has
held the advantage on this issue." Last month, he had the Democrats holding
a one-point lead, but they lost it in June's polling.

And the Democratic leads over Republicans on their core issues are also
dropping. Particularly interesting is the Democratic decline over
healthcare, from an 18-point lead in May to only 10 points now.

A Gallup poll also confirms that the president's personal ratings are high,
but the underlying data less so. While 67 percent of voters give Obama
personal favorable ratings and 61 percent approve of his job performance
(Rasmussen has his job approval lower, at 55 percent), they give him much
lower ratings on specific issues.

Gallup shows Obama getting only 55 percent approval on his handling of the
economy (down from 59 percent in February) and finds that only 45 percent
approve of his handling of federal spending while 46 percent approve of his
treatment of the budget deficit.

As it becomes clearer that the deficit caused by spending has landed us in a
new economic crisis, entirely of Obama's own making, his popularity and job
performance are likely to drop as well.

The old recession - that the public says was caused by Bush - shows signs of
winding down. But the new recession and/or inflation - triggered by Obama's
massive deficits - is just now coming upon us.

If Obama refuses to cut back on his spending/stimulus plans (despite
convincing evidence that Americans are not spending the money), he has three
options:

a) He can raise taxes, which will trigger a deeper recession;

b) He can print money, which will trigger huge inflation;

c) He can pay more interest to borrow money, which will send the economy
diving down again.

The blame for these outcomes will fall squarely on Obama's deficit and
spending policies. The fact that Americans are aware of these issues, and
already disapprove of Obama's performance on them, indicates that they will
be increasingly receptive to blaming him for the "new" recession.

Interestingly, Obama's polling is now the exact opposite of President
Clinton's in the days after Monica Lewinsky. Back then, the president's
approval for handling specific issues was his forte, while his job approval
remained high but his personal favorability lagged 20 points behind.
Ultimately, it is a politician's performance on specific issues that
determines his electability. Personal favorability withers in the face of
issue differences. Obama is about to find out that you cannot rely on image
to bolster your presidency when the underlying issues are crumbling.

All this data suggests that Obama might run out of steam just as he gets to
his healthcare agenda. As unemployment mounts, month after month, and Obama's
claims of job creation (or savings) ring hollow, it is possible that he will
not have the heft to pass his radical restructuring of the healthcare
system. The automaton Democratic majority may pass it anyway, but it will be
a one-way ticket to oblivion if they do.