Heck, some would argue he’s not even definitive about his sports picks … maybe he’ll select his real choices for the final four once the Sweet 16 is over and done with. From The Daily.

Fed up with a president “who can’t make his mind up” as Libyan rebels are on the brink of defeat, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is looking to the exits.

At the tail end of her mission to bolster the Libyan opposition, which has suffered days of losses to Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces, Clinton announced that she’s done with Obama after 2012 — even if he wins again.

“Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

Read the entire piece, which includes an interview with one insider, plus refers to statements by former President Bill Clinton, one of his previous top advisors, the French president, and a French diplomat. Add this all up and you’ve got a extraordinarily bad leadership issue that borders on a crisis.

The following quotes are from the Gridiron Club Dinner – including a stand-up comedy routine by the president – last week, but they were during the same period Gadhafi was slamming the Libyan opposition. This guy’s timing is terrible.

“I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders — though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” Obama said to laughter from the audience.

“These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.”

God forbid one of your top secretaries take her position seriously. Maybe he thinks Clinton should take up golf and ease up on the work schedule a little bit.

Amateur night it is…

The Secretary of State tries to convince Bob Schieffer that the TSA is in a difficult position and we need to be understanding. But even she can see the public outcry is more than a little justified. Don’t you touch her junk, and you know what I am talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9TbOIIPZw

UPDATE: OK … with that published I would like to add that I truly believe this administration wants to keep us safe. They are embarrassed with the way the “Fruit of the Boom Bomber” beat security (they shouldn’t, by the way. It wasn’t there watch). They don’t want it to happen again or anything like that on their watch. Thus they grabbed at the latest and greatest technology, intrusive as it is, and installed a intrusive pat down system without considering the public’s sensibilities, without thinking through it clearly and without properly training TSA agents. This is the result.

But they also clearly have no intention of instituting anything even slightly resembling profiling, as in Israel. On State of the Union, TSA Chief John Pistole explains profiling, ain’t happening, even though Israel shows it works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezfV99i3tKM

The result it what we have now. And it’s not good. Even worse, the people are revolting, and the Government doesn’t have a plan B.

The Democrats have been hammering away on Mrs McMahon’s WWE empire for weeks, and the main stream media has dutifully followed suit never letting the chance to go by without mentioning “wraslin’”. Disgusting they called it. But that’s now … this was then. Hat tip to Hot Air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHJhVBemBmA

Delicious irony. Despite this, the Daily Caller reports … this:

On Tuesday, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman Eric Schultz called WWE programming “violent, sexually explicit material that glorified the exploitation of women, and the mentally disabled.” Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan accused the GOP of nominating “a candidate who kicks men in the crotch, thinks of scenes of necrophilia as ‘entertainment,’ and runs an operation where women are forced to bark like dogs,” referring to sketches that appeared in WWE programming during McMahon’s tenure as CEO.

And don’t you buy for one second the Dumbocrats aren’t taking a whack at the whole wrestling crowd … which is what they claimed today in the Daily Caller:

When asked about whether it was appropriate for Democratic candidates to appear on WWE programs, a spokesman for the DNC said they were not attacking professional wrestling, but McMahon’s handling of her company.

Busted. They and the media never miss an opportunity to put down her supporters as gap toothed, bible thumping, shotgun toting, PBR swilling, sister kissing, cousin marrying Neanderthals. Remember you Waterbury folks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zRriRDDuUM

Well be careful when you decide to “wrastle” in a glass house. Your arguments get shattered.

“It is hypocritical,” said Chris Healy, chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party. “They were more than eager to enlist WWE when it served their purposes and when it doesn’t, they trash them.”

“They are empty attacks,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Amber Marchand. “They are trying to draw attention away from the fact that [Democratic Senate candidate Richard] Blumenthal is a weak candidate.”

Here’s the deal. As I said weeks ago, at a time when unemployment is soaring, the economy sinking and our debt and our children’s indebtedness growing … if this is the best Blumy can do … smack down!

Editors note: If you don’t know what PBR is, my guess is Fineman and Todd were not talking about you.

Read this entire post and send it to your friends please! The links and data at the bottom of the post are very important. Don’t let Hillary Clinton or any other liberal re-write history.

I’m sick of people saying the rich don’t pay their fair share. We’ve debunked that argument so many times it’s ridiculous. The rich – however defined – certainly do pay their fair share of taxes and much more.

I’m have a full time “day” job and in the evenings and weekends I dabble a little with website implementation and management for small businesses. I’m not rich by any standard the Obama administration elects to use this week. For every dollar I make (after expenses) in that side business – and it’s not much – 45 cents go toward taxes. That’s right, 25 percent goes towards federal income taxes, 15 percent goes towards self-employment taxes and another 5 percent goes to the state.

At what point is a taxation level considered immoral? What is my incentive to grow my own small business where maybe I could quit my day job and hire a few people to work for me? Was this not America’s promise? Freedom, personal responsibility, growth, success, hard work and prosperity?

People like Sec. Clinton and President Barack Obama are now daily crushing the will of Americans looking to prosper and achieve. From Ben Smith at Politico. (There is a sponsor message prior to the Hillary clip.)

“The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it’s individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms,” [Sec. of State Hillary] Clinton told an audience at the Brookings Institution, where she was discussing the Administration’s new National Security Strategy.

Clinton said the comment was her personal opinion alone. “I’m not speaking for the administration, so I’ll preface that with a very clear caveat,” she said.

She has the guts to reference Brazil where the rich are getting richer and “they’re pulling people out of poverty.” Has she taken a look at the slums of Rio lately? Did they not shoot a police helicopter out of the sky last year?

And by the way, America is not Brazil … no offense to Brazil.

Tax Cuts Work!

The United States has proven that tax reductions actually bring wide-spread growth to all. I’ve had multiple posts on the subject, but one of my favorites is one from November 2008, republished in February 2009 since I worked so damn hard on it.

Equally important was my post from November 2008 that detailed how every income demographic improved their position after the Bush tax cuts. It’s simple, Bush cut taxes for all Americans who paid taxes and the rich got richer and families were pulled from the lower class into the middle class. Don’t be a Clinton sponge, go look at the actual data.

Now, look again at Clinton’s quote and what she says in the video and ask yourself … is she just spewing this crap assuming everyone will listen or does she have any data – like I have provided – that proves raising taxes and spending more of our own personal wealth through government will improve the status of the lower and middle class?

Socialism is around the corner. We must fight this “it feels right” economic attitude and teach and mentor how economics actually works or we’re doomed.

In reality, this naive and delusional approach to dealing with members of the Axis of Evil simply reaffirms North Korea and Iran’s target concerning the number of nuclear warheads they need to cause political, economic and cultural instability throughout the world.

One. That’s right, by letting the world know we have a little more than 5,000 nuclear warheads of some type, we gain absolutely nothing since all North Korea or Iran needs to do is build and successfully test one bomb to screw everything up.

President Obama’s approach to foreign relations seems very foreign to me. With recent history as a guide – the past 75 years – we have seen how this approach works out. No matter how hard you try, no matter your tone, no matter your hope and change rhetoric, you will not be able to placate evil-doers, and you’re not going to get them to sit down with Dr. Phil for an anger management session either.

I’ve said that before, but our current group of amateurs in the Executive Branch must really believe they can keep buying off the lunatics running states like Iran and North Korea to the point where those loons come to the realization Israel does not need to be wiped off the map.

Note to Executive Branch staff: We are the good guys.

From an Investor’s Business Daily editorial yesterday. Do go read the full post.

We prefer President Kennedy’s dictum that “only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.” Compare that clarion call to defend America with Mrs. Clinton’s announcement that “beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991.” If we show you ours, will you show us yours?

The U.S. hopes to shame Pyongyang and Tehran into compliance. Good luck with that hopey-changey idea. America’s new national policy seems to be one of peace through weakness and talk softly while throwing away our stick.

When Iran’s loon, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has pledged to wipe Israel off the map when Tehran gets its nukes, reminded the conference that the U.S. was the only nation to use nuclear weapons, our response should have been: “Feel lucky, Mahmoud?”

Update: Yesterday afternoon, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air figured providing the figure provided no advantage to anyone.

The Washington Times had one of the stories concerning the narrowing policy earlier this week.

The document alters the role of nuclear weapons in defense policy by reducing the number of potential U.S. nuclear targets. It asserts — with caveats — that the United States would not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack.

That assurance would only apply to countries that had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and had met their obligations. Countries flouting the treaty remain a threat to U.S. security, the document says.

“The United States is therefore not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons, but will work to establish conditions under which such a policy could be safely adopted,” it says.

The United States also said it might adjust the policy if biological weapons technology developed more catastrophic potential.

Clinton the president’s remarks this morning on Face the State.

The revised nuclear policy says that the United States will not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack from a non-nuclear country. The policy, however, leaves significant contingencies, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Countries which are non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (such as North Korea) or have been found to be non-compliant (such as Iran) are not exempt from nuclear retaliation under the Obama policy.

“We were concerned about the biological weapons,” Gates said, “and that’s why the president was very clear … if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy.”

Clinton added, “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”

I guess there are always plenty of caveats concerning the use of nuclear weapons when their primary purpose is a deterrent, especially for the United States. My concern here is many pundits are trying to get the Obama administration to lay out specific game plans when and if something specific happens.

Isn’t there some saying about a perfectly planned battle plan that almost always gets thrown out the window once the actual battle starts?

Let’s not pigeon hole America into a situation where we are required to stick to the battle or response plan OK?

Call it a bribe if you will as it seems to be a popular way to do business in Washington D.C. these days to “get business done.” This evening The Hill reports on a plan to spend around $1 billion over five years to try to get the Taliban to play nice in Afghanistan. The report comes from Al Jazeera.

Update: Michelle Malkin picked up on bribes for bombers. For Malkin visitors … it’s not just bribes, read my post from last week.

Al Jazeera has learnt that a plan is being considered to pay up to $1bn to Taliban fighters to persuade them to lay down their arms.

In advance of an international conference in London to discuss Afghanistan’s future on Thursday, Japan, the United States and Britain are said to be leading the proposal.

The scheme would offer cash, jobs and other incentives to the Taliban and fighters in other armed groups.

“The sum could be as much as between $500m and $1bn over the next five years”, Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from London, said.

He said the money would be used to persuade individual Taliban fighters that they are better off on the government’s side rather than fighting on the side of the Taliban.

Parts of the funds would be spent on projects to develop the fighters’ villages and  building roads to their communities, he said.

Bull feathers. My guess is 25 percent of the cash will be used to do what they plan, and the other 75 percent will be used to fight Americans and coalition forces in-country and possibly in other areas.

I don’t like this idea one bit. What ever happened to the practice of unconditional surrender?

This is not some far-off scheme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is currently in London – outside of the beltway during the State of the Union address – working with other countries to figure out any way possible to get a temporary – yes I said temporary – win for the Obama administration in Afghanistan.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is skipping tonight’s State of the Union address in Washington, is in London for the talks.

If it was only this easy…

It’s one of those moments when I actually feel sorry for Secretary Clinton … and poor Robert Gates, who’s up first trying to explain Obama’s date certain as … well … not really a date certain. It even makes him choke on the words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMicxlSKvhs

That’s some fine twisting, but nothing compared to Secretary Clinton’s response to the same question on Meet The Press. It’s not an exit date … it’s an assessment. Oh brother.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q22to89PWe0

Just as a refresher … here is what the president actually said. I don’t hear much wiggle room.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQGDuzDAk3c

It’s torture really, for them and us. Even the left is beginning to notice the vacuous nature of this President’s speeches. Tina Brown offers clarity herself, and it makes this administration look either comical or inept or both. Via: Instapundit

It’s a strange paradox for a great wordsmith, but whenever Obama makes an important policy speech these days he leaves everyone totally confused. His first health-care press conference back in July triggered a season of raucous political Rorschach and left his hopeful followers utterly baffled about what they were being asked to support. Now White House envoys are being dispatched all over the globe to explain what the president really meant about the date when troops will or won’t be pulled out of Afghanistan. Hillary, you go to the Hill! Take Gates and Adm. Mullen with you. Holbrooke, off to Brussels! And you, Gen. Petraeus, you go on 360 and hit Anderson Cooper with jargony dog whistle caveats like “the pace of the drawdown is conditions-based.” Does Obama create confusion on purpose?

This is what comes from a President whose heart is not in a war he told America he would win and a President whose heart is with the left, forcing him to hold his nose as he orders troops into Afghanistan hoping the strategy works before he is forced to withdraw. In my view, it doesn’t make for good leadership or instill confidence in either the American or Afghan people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le5EUWpU8Wg

Hey, it’s not like the former President was in Las Vegas for his birthday while his wife was sweating in the Congo or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Be0ieBjyhM

As it turns out … the question was mistraslated, or so we are told.

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.

The questioner meant to ask what does the president … meaning Obama … think. I don’t know if I buy that … but for the chief diplomat, not a good performance.