If Obama loves America, he sure does have a funny way of showing it

Our hopelessly corrupt left-wing media is apoplectic over comments that Rudy Giuliani made expressing doubt in President Obama's love of country.  Of course, these same media hacks were just fine with Obama questioning Bush's patriotism whenever it suited him. (And somehow they never seem to notice that if Obama held himself to the same standard on debt he held Bush to, he'd have to call himself the most unpatriotic president ever.)

Obama's early life was filled with communists and anti-colonialists who harbored a deep resentment of the West in general and of America in particular.  As a young man, Obama specifically sought out Jeremiah Wright and chose him as a spiritual mentor, and he sat in the pews of that church for over 20 years while Wright spouted all sorts of anti-American nonsense; at one point Wright even explicitly blamed America for 9/11.  Obama's political career began in the living room of Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist whose terror group bombed the Pentagon on Ho Chi Minh's birthday.  After all that, why should anyone just automatically assume that America gives Obama the warm fuzzies?

Michelle Obama openly admits that she wasn't proud of her country until her husband was elected president.  This is the woman he chose to spend the rest of his life with?  This is his soul mate?  What does that say about him?

One of the first things Obama did as president was go around the world apologizing on behalf of America.  Obama apologizes for America, yet he jumps to the defense of Islam again and again.  Bizarrely, he even tried to credit Islam with being part of the fabric of our country from America's inception, yet somehow he neglects to ever mention the Barbary Wars.  Obama refuses to call Islamic terrorists what they are because he refuses to believe they might actually be motivated even in part by Islam.  And Obama's apparent anti-Semitism causes him to spurn Israel, America's greatest ally in the Middle East, over and over again.  Are these the priorities of a man who loves America?

Whenever Obama speaks about American exceptionalism he either seems to dismiss it outright or he gives an answer that demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the term.  (Once, he even tried to offer himself as proof of America's exceptionalism, which is just the sort of thing you'd expect a malignant narcissist to do.)  As president, Obama has always placed far more importance on the advancement of his own far-left agenda than he has on the constitutional principles of popular sovereignty. republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government, and individual rights.  Even the lectures he gave at the University of Chicago Law School were never much more than a series of "social justice" talking points dressed up as lectures about constitutional law.  Can you really say that you love America when you don't love any of the things that make America special?  Can you really say that you love anything that you've promised to fundamentally transform into something completely different?

One World Trade Center

I like the look of the new One World Trade Center building.  Here's some video of it that someone took recently:

I like the shape of it.  The top is shaped like a square, and the bottom is shaped like a square, but the building ends up having eight sides because of the way it tapers.

Daniel Libeskind was the original architect for the building, but he was eventually forced to collaborate with David Childs.  It was probably for the best, I've seen what happens when Libeskind is left to his own devices.  Libeskind is a deconstructivist, so most of his designs tend to be rather bizarre; his design for the Jewish Museum in Berlin is one of the strangest things I've ever seen:

Jesus.  Can you imagine being in one of the surrounding buildings and having to look at that god-awful shitty mess all day?

How Obama chose to spend 9/11

No, this isn't some stupid Obama impersonator playing a joke, this actually happened today:

 

What the hell?  This is the only interview he gave today, and they don't even mention that it's the anniversary of 9/11.  Yeah, tell us again how weird you think Mitt Romney is, Mr. President.

And if that's not enough, there's the administration's utterly pathetic response to the events that took place in Cairo and Benghazi today... not to mention the pointed snub of Benjamin Netanyahu.  Sadly, John Bolton's description of Obama as the first post-American president becomes more and more apt with each passing day.

The idiocy of Iowa

I really don't understand the poll numbers that have been coming out of Iowa ahead of the caucuses there. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are now close enough to each other to be within the margin of error, with Rick Santorum in third place, Newt Gingrich in fourth, and Rick Perry fifth.

I can see why Newt Gingrich might slide a bit in the polls, I have questioned for a while now how Newt could ever possibly maintain a lead in the polls for any great length of time.  But why would Ron Paul be gaining so much momentum?  I may have some libertarian tendencies, but there's no way I could ever vote for a guy who is crazy enough to toe Dennis Kucinich's line on foreign policy... his anti-semitic newsletters and flirtations with 9/11 trutherism aren't exactly sweetening the deal for me either.

And I'm constantly amazed at how well Mitt Romney always does in the polls.  The argument for nominating him is always that he is the most electable, but how electable will he really be once the media's long knives finally come out?  Romney's flip-flops already have much of his own party's base dissatisfied with him, but in the general election he would also be easily villified as a wealthy fat cat with a lousy record on job creation, and having Romneycare on his résumé will make it pretty much impossible for him to ever effectively campaign against Obamacare.

Another thing that bothers me, why on earth does Iowa always get the first say in our presidential elections?  Obama beat McCain in Iowa by a margin of at least ten points, so why should Republicans be looking to Iowa as the first state to whittle our field of candidates down?  I think it would make much more sense to give red states the first say in picking Republican candidates and blue states the first say in picking Democrat candidates, with states having the highest percentage of the vote for each party having the earliest scheduled primaries.  If we did things that way, the GOP primaries would begin in Oklahoma and end in Hawaii... and the Democrats would begin theirs in Hawaii and end in Wyoming.

Update: Ace is still trying to make the case for Rick Perry... I think he makes a pretty good case, but when a kook like Ron Paul has twice the poll numbers that Perry has, it probably doesn't matter at this point.  You can't reason someone out of a position that they never reasoned themselves into to begin with.

Update:  Thanks to the Watchers Council for the honorable mention.

Update:  Well, looks like Romney won in Iowa, but just barely,  I still don't get it... why do we start there?  What would the field look like right now if we were already talking about the results of the Oklahoma primary, and Iowa caucuses were still months away?

Oy, gevalt!

Writing at Yid With Lid, Jeff Dunetz has this to say about Occupy Boston's attempted takeover of the Israeli Consulate this weekend:

The attempted attack on the consulate should be a big surprise to people who read the mainstream media because they have been reporting the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic incidents coming from the Occupy protests were the product of a few lone-wolf nuts. This particular Anti-Israel event wasn't a fringe group or a lone nut, it was an officially sanctioned Occupy Boston event.

Thankfully they didn't get into the consulate - only the building's lobby, but even if they got to the embassy there would have been no one there because these Occupy "friends of the Jewish Community," forgot that Consulates of the Jewish State are closed on the Jewish Sabbath.

(found via Right Truth)