My housewarming gift for President Obama
After news of Barack Obama’s cranked-up thermostat eco-hypocrisy came to light this week, I got to thinking. What could we do to help our president? What could we do to show our patriotism, reach across the aisle, and help the White House save energy during these frigid 100 first days?
I thought of crocheting him a sweater, but I just don’t have the time (or stomach) to convert this pattern:
Fortunately, there’s a less time-consuming alternative out there to cope with sub-tropical temperatures. You’ve seen the ad on TV a million times:
SNUGGIE!
It’s the blanket…with sleeves. One size fits all. Perfect for keeping the president’s bulging pectorals warm while allowing him to free up his hands for important household tasks — like signing new tax hikes on the poor into law.
The next time President Obama is photographed in his shirt sleeves in the overheated Oval Office this winter, I’m hitting send on my order form…
Maybe they can make personalized Snuggies adorned with a mini-patch of everyone’s favorite presidential seal:
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Bloodthirsty Liberal » Warming to the President
- Steele Wins RNC Chair, Michelle Malkin’s Housewarming Gift for Obama and Three Planes Full of Beer - Your Weekend Links | All American Blogger
- My housewarming gift for President Obama — But As For Me
- [VIDEO]: Yes I Cantor! « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Defense Department Establishes Civilian Expeditionary Workforce for combat-support missions « Goodtimepolitics
- Department of Too Funny | BobMaistros.com
- Send a housewarming gift to The Anointed One « NObama Blog
- A gift idea for our new leader « The Daley Gator
- Living proof that Michelle Malkin is a bit warped | Political Byline
- Do As I Say, Not As I Do: You Must Obey The Obamessiah « The Chronicles Of Two Rogue Jews
- Michelle Malkin » Super Bowl bet: What will the thermostat temp be at the White House party?
- Obama, how ’bout stimulating the Military? « Riggword Weblog
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Finally: The Snuggie stimulus
- Michelle Malkin » The Snuggie Stimulus
- Finally: The Snuggie stimulus — But As For Me
- My housewarming gift for President Obama « Top Daily Digest Reading
- Michelle Malkin » Green homes for thee, but not for me
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Double standards, Enviro-nitwits
Legal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No Reid
The Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names NamesThe Powers That Be
» A Picture is Worth a Trillion Dollars and Lots of Lost FreedomRiehl World View
» Health Care Bill In A Few WordsPundit & Pundette
» Not a huge victoryJustOneMinute
» Ari Fleischer Needs To Cowboy UpThe Other McCain
» Debunking Frank Rich's NY23 fantasies
flyover,
Thanks for the cite. I note that it says every $10 increase per barrel costs the military 1.3 billion. Considering we went from $130 to $40 or so, I’d say that is significant savings.
I hope the Cardinals win, because it gives bad teams hope. Haha. Hope.
And, Change ? ROFLMAO
This is what we’ll need with Obama’s military.
http://www.psywarrior.com/InflatableTank.jpg
I’m tired of hearing that BO needs to keep the
thermostat at 77 because he’s from Hawaii. I was
raised in AZ and S TX but did not turn up heat when it
was so cold in N Central TX last week!!
You mean Obama hasn’t parted the skies and shown his countinence upon the land and warmed it with his glorified gaze?
In fact, why didn’t he stop the ice storm all together with his omniscient power.
Surely if GWB could make a storm come out of the ocean and destroy New Orleans that Obama could have saved the Mid South and Mid West from the ice storm.
(wow, I think I just used up all of my sarcasm for the month of February)
Superbowl. 5 plays followed by a commercial repeatedly for over 4 hours. Oh and Bruce at half time for who knows how long. Boring!!!!
Good day for a good book.
These postings sound like “family”.
Sheese get over it.
BO will, like our former one-term president and Israel’s hero, Jimmie Carter , fail. Chappy, whoever, we should leave the trolls alone to drowned in their misery and pork.
Let me invoke the spirit of Carnac the Magnificent.
Clinton
Carter
Budget Cuts
Ed…the envelope please…
“What are three things that have nothing to do with Obama considering the fact he is not cutting the DoD’s budget.”
It might indeed be that that could be a legitimate debate.
However, I’m not aware that anyone was debating that.
The mathematical accuracy aspect of honesty should be a given.
Agreed.
That refers to the “letter” of the discussion; which is essentially a distraction from the essence of the discussion.
And, you know that.
You may deny it.
But, you know that.
Again, as far as the literal, mathematically accurate aspect goes, that is not incorrect.
Whether it was a “screed” is, from what I read, the opinion of one individual.
I think I’m a bit older than you.
I was in high school and college during the Vietnam War protests.
I remember how the protests stopped, virtually overnight, as if a switch had been flicked, as soon as the draft was stopped, and the military became all-volunteer. Hell, it was even a high-school debate team topic for us one year (paraphrased): “Resolved, that the military should become all-volunteer”.
I also clearly remember how the military, the U.S. government, and military personnel in general were viciously, nastily condemned.
Returning servicemen were spat upon and called babykillers.
That actually happened.
The socialists made political hay with that, because it was Republican administrations from Jan. 1969-Jan. 1977.
And the media made hay with it because the media (entertainment, news, broadcast) were, as they are now, overwhelmingly socialist.
And ROTC was kicked out of colleges and universities because academians were, as they are now, overwhelmingly socialist.
Then the disaster that was Carter came.
And Carter was/is a socialist.
And then the embarassment that was Clinton came.
And Clinton was/is a socialist.
So, when it is said that the socialists hate troops, that is most definitely not crap.
It is merely a statement of fact.
The hypocritical, faux-outrage response by socialists to that statement is nothing more than an act of fear and a diversionary tactic, precisely because it is accurate, and merely a statement of fact.
The socialists’ response is not unlike the hysterical, threatening responses from Muslims when accurate statements about Islam are made by Robert Spencer (his books) and Geert Wilders (his film “Fitna”).
The “spirit” of the discussion a number of posts ago had nothing to do with mathematical accuracy of dollar units of spending.
Rather, it most likely had everything to do with the socialists’ ultimate plans for the military; which will be (because they are socialists, after all) to significantly cut military spending; and to add those funds to the other funds they will generate with tax increases; and thus significantly increase spending on entitlements, in order to buy more votes, and to further consolidate their power.
Diversionary tactic, socialists, lawyers…hmmmm.
Diversion, and spinning, and twisting of the truth made a lasting impression on me during the time of the embarrassment that was Clinton (Jan. 1993-Jan. 2001), when weaseling was made into an art form.
I remember at the time thinking that Clinton was no different from the wise-ass guy who, in school, say, would swipe your pen, or book, or whatever;
then, when you confronted him, if he did not have the (whatever) on his person, if you asked him, “Do you have my (whatever)?”, would answer “no”.
Your problem was that you had asked the wrong question…you should have asked, “Did you take my (whatever)?”
If you were to accuse him of lying, he could claim that he had not…since he did not have the (whatever) on his person.
Therefore, technically, he did not lie to you.
He might even glibly tell you, “I didn’t lie to you. You didn’t ask me if I took it. You only asked me if I had it.”
A typical lawyerly gambit.
What the wise-ass would be trying to pull…now, that is crap.
And of course, it would not be wrong to say that a wise-ass like that deserved a good smack in the mouth for such deception.
Sorry for the length.
Gotta get up early and go the hopsital for a few hours in the A.M.
‘nite, all.
sounds like you have some unresolved issues to work out granite. Still fighting the same tired war 35 years later. Hope you have a good shrink.
In the meantime, I guess I will have to console myself being “technically” or as I like to put it “actually” correct, and confess to ignorance about this purported spirit of the discussion in which you claim Obama is going to cut all military spending. You have your feelings about what Obama will do on one hand, and I have what he has actually done on the other. You purport to me a doctor but seem to have little regard for empirical evidence.
72 would be fine. I’d put a solar array on the roof, and a wind turbine in the VPs office that would run like mad on his stories of being a coal miners daughter. And drill…
And really – I got here late – but more money is not a cut. Plenty to argue about, but starting with factual statements is always good…
before someone else points of out I did not mean “all military spending” as in 0 dollars. I meant cuts in all aspects of military funding.
I would not dare to intentionally misconstrue granite’s well reasoned argument based upon his observations of two people who are no Obama and his very strong feelings about liberals.
it’s not your fault yourblate to the party, aloha. I’m not even sure this conversation has even taken place yet on your time zone.
That or else you can already tell us who wins tomorrow. I get confused.
I hate typing on my iPod.
So, you’re going to dismiss the experiences and observations of retired and active duty military members because they don’t fit into your perspective, right? You’re going to be an a$$ to granite instead of actually respond to his observations. What does that make you, chaps? More reasonable? Dodgy? What?
I don’t think you quite fathom how much pain and agony that this country put our military through during the Vietnam years and I’m talking about the citizenry. Sort of what’s happening now. Why the hell should any contributor to this blog take your word for it? Do you work on budgets for the DOD? Do you crunch the numbers like Boomer does in his job? How exactly are you involved with this budgetary debate?
Why should any blog contributor dismiss history? Any time a liberal/socialist/Dem took power(whatever they and you like to call yourselves) the military still got cut. The Air Force and other branches of the military need to replace their equipment. They, like the airlines, spend incredible amounts on fuel. However, the Air Force is using synthetic fuel to cut down on those costs.
Why should we trust Obummer or you? Why should we take your work or Obummer’s word for it? How will a “10%” cut translate? How can you sit there, at your little iPod, and try to disquise a cut as an increase? Just because the DOD will not bring as much to the table in the new budget doesn’t mean people and resources (personnel, families, equipment, units) won’t suffer.
Where the hell is your evidence? The military is already working with less to maximize output. How much more blood can you get from a stone?
Your opinion is reflective of an environment where you don’t crunch the numbers in a military setting. You’re not juggling manpower, equipment, resources. There are REAL people who already know the reality of the situation and how much modernization needs to occur.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that this “10%” cut won’t be a cut? I think the cuts will be a lot more steep than “10%”. The military will be scapegoated because of the two wars while Dem pet projects (like social security, Medicaid/Medicare, welfare, public education and universal healthcare) will need “urgent” attention.
Chaps, our freaking military is falling apart. We need a cash infusion, not excuses. It’s been like this for the past 15-20 years because the ignorants in America are under the impression that the military hogs the Federal budget at the expense of the poor people. When the opposite is the case. The Federal government has a financial common sense issue rather than an allocation issue.
Last time I worked in federal and state buildings, the rules were: 78 in summer/65 in winter. I wonder if those rules still apply or are we “over the energy crisis”?
Ahhh…back to a regular keyboard….
Of course, granite comes on here and essentially calls me a dishonest, slimy socialist laywer. but I am the one being rude. I keep my sarcasm and rudness at bay when others do toward me. We both know that has never been the case between granite and I. What granite or anyone gets from me isn’t anywhere near what I take.
I am happy to engage in a debate about why the military needs more funding than last year, either because of increased needs, inflation, whatever.
What I am not willing to do is indulge absolutely wrong statements (like Obama is cutting the DoD by 10%) which may be first said in ignorance, but then perpetuated because you dislike Obama.
I am also not willing to indulge a “debate” in which I am basically told one side is a bunch of communists that wants our soldiers to die so that they can buy more TVs for poor people. Sorry. You may think that is a reasoned stance. I do not.
Lastly, I will not tolerate the attitude that any questioning of the DoD budget, or a refusal to just accept a proposed budget, or a desire to scrutinize military spending and make the military expalin and justify their budget requests somehow means you are in bed with Iran and North Korea.
You are right, that was before I was born. But beyond a few far left fringe groups (like Code Pink) and a few far right groups (Westboro), I truly cannot imagine that it is nearly the same. Because otherwise the 60s were a lot tamer than I was led to believe.
Really? Under FDR? Under Johnson? Look at this chart showing military spending as a percentage of the GDP which is admittedly imperfect, but still useful. Johnson destroys either Reagan, Bush or Bush II (for the years shown). As does FDR. In fact Reagan is a lot closer to Carter than he is to Johnson. Or if you want to look at rew numbers, lets look at Carter when 97 billion was spent in 1977, 104.5 billion in 1978 116 billion in 1979 and 133 billion in 1980. How is that cutting the military?
The question is why you continue to call a spending increase a cut. Set aside your blinding hatred of Obama for a sec and just look at the numbers. If you want to argue that he still is not providing enough, fine. But don’t be dishonest.
For the past 8 years the military has recevied every cent they have asked for. Cool. Not saying they didn’t need or deserve it. But that being the case, what has been the real problem? Maybe the leadership? And if there is one thing I know conservatives believe, its that simply throwing money at a problem is not the answer. I wonder if that applies to the military as well.
Chap,
If you want the military to spend its money efficiently, then I have a fabulous RECOMMENDATION for you.
Get Congress the hell out ofthe management of the military’s procurement. I will give you two sterling examples. Years ago the USAF wanted to halt production of the C-130 transport. To keep the production facility open in Marietta, GA the Congress MANDATED the USAF buy so many C-130’s a year they never asked for.
Example 2, the USMC’s VS-22 Osprey. The Marines never wanted this aircraft. Congress mandated spending BILLIONS on it. They are being used in the system. Totally uneeded by the Corps.
It all comes, like Fannie and Freddie, back to the root problem. Parties are no longer focused on the needs of the country, but the needs of the party.
The result? Schools that spend 14,000+ a year on students who cannot read, the mortgage business turned on its head, manufacturing getting destroyed by pandering to the greenies and the unions, 28 cents on the dollar actually getting to welfare recipients, etc., etc. etc.
You will note I did not specify a party. Both sides have been utterly irresponsible. If Obama wants to cut anything by 10%, show me the plan.
We can find efficiencies in most any government program and make it work. Example, the Army was directed by the Secretary of Defense to form 3 new Infantry divisions and not add one soldier to the system. We did it. 45,000 men added to war fighting and three new combat divisions(6th, 7th, and 10th ID’s). I know, as I served in the Reserve Componenet 3rd Brigade of one of them. Is that the leadership you are referring too?
We could use some.
Thank you Flyoverman, for a very interesting post.
I had no idea. I find it amazing that Congress would intentionally foist projects on the military that they did not want. Why is more of a fuss not put up by the top brass? Or are they in some way complicit in this?
In any case, I agree it sounds like solid reform that will never happen.
Certainly not. That sounds amazing. I was talking about top brass and CiC, and more of the macro decisions they make.
For example, and maybe not directly related, but I think about something like the VA hospital system. Why not just give every veteran sterling health insurance? Does setting up an entirely separate network and beurocracy provide better care to vets? My sister in law is about to become head of endocrinology at a VA and she is always mentioning how resistant the VA is to using better, newer, more expensive drugs when she is easily able to use them with her non-VA patients.
On the other hand, she says the VA is bar none hands down a leader in certain areas, like TBI and spinal injuries. So maybe there is something to be said for a separate system.
No, it is not useful. It is fallacious and misleading to suggest real military spending can be adequately expressed as a percentage of GDP, when it doesn’t account for tangible outlays for the growth and development of our armed services in terms of technology, mission funding, and refurbishment and training.
BTW, like Wikipedia, isn’t T&P.org considered less than credible by most reputable, non-partisan organizations?
Look at the source of their numbers in the footnotes. They all come from the OMB.
And admittedly it is a blunt tool, but what else would you use to compare military spending across different decades? Raw numbers certainly doesn’t do it. But if you want to look at those, care to comment on how Carter gutted the military when DoD budget increased about 38% during his tenure?
Sure, inflation was bad then, but that still was “only” about 30% from the beginnin of his term to the end.
I am not saying anyone who says the miltary was “gutted” during Carter is wrong, but surely there must be some other explanation other than dollars or the dollar’s purchasing power.
DOD Budget or not, what is clear is BHO’s contempt for the military when he thanks the UN for the success of the Iraq elections and forgets to mention the hard work and sacrifice of America’s military. I envision our military working for the UN soon, giving a significant portion of their budget to them and being called up to serve “peacekeeping” missions furthering the interests of countries who have spent the last few decades swearing themselves as an enemy of the USA.
Well Chap @#109
The Brass don’t fuss as those same people are the only way that brass can rank up, and they can be fired or knocked down a grade, or placed into a postition that doesn’t allow advancment.
In my Own ROTC courses we were made to learn edicate and protocol, I asked what that had to do with being an officer and a soldier, and I was told plainly, by our SAI, and I qoute “You will recive inivtations to attend various goverment functions from people in the congress and the senate, and unless you want your promotions to end you will attend, and if you don’t agree with something you keep your mouth shut, as you serve the goverment.”
The US Army in terms of its commanding Staff and its NCO’s are fastly different. We have few Pattons, just plenty of Goerings who will do what the Fuher says no matter who or what that is. As the promotion of officers is now tied directly to the goverment, as is any request for weaponary, or R&D. For instance the promising Comanche and Palin weapons systems were cut out and the F-22 looks like it will be canned.
The US Military if quickly looking like that of the Soviet Union. And to answer a question on how with less money Obama can grow the force, its simple. Always boil a matter down to as simple as you can.
1, Obama LIED, well he is a politition.
2, can new weapons programs, build older cheaper designs, and be willing to build more Caskets.
Oh and to add, Chap purchasing power and political control over resources are all that matters. A M1A2 will run around 16 million I think, I know for a fact a Bradly is 7 million to construct. The Russians having greater national control and a more authortarian nature and Currancy can build a T-90 tank for around $800,000. So even with a fraction of our budget it can push out more. And out Vaunted Stealth Bombers rolled out for a Billion a pop. We can’t affoard to build them, and in any case the DOD has seen intel that show the Russian and Chinese may have made counters for them.
Heck it goes down the line even more. An AK type weapon will run you about $80-$250 to build in an armory the ammo is even cheaper. Hence why you never see Russian or Chinese Forces in combat with a rifle shortage. A M-4/16 will run at least $1,700 a soldier. And its why our tankers in Iraq had to take AK’s to protect themselves. US weapons systems are over priced significantly, due to purchasing power.
Eastern Countries can always buy more for less as if you don’t agree you will be shot.
As I and many other commenters have said, one would have to had lived through the Carter years to truly appreciate and understand just how great a failure he was at leading – i.e., protecting – this country.
I was sixteen in 1980, and remember well how unnerved my friends and I were at news reports about the nation’s new-found inability to protect its citizens, as demonstrated by the hostage situation, and Carter’s feckless inability to do anything to solve it.
Every night the three networks were filled with reports of “the window of vulnerability,” created by Carter’s failure to adequately fund the military; even Cronkite’s CBS News featured nightly reports detailing the military’s decline under Carter.
So no, I don’t accept your source or your premise that Republicans were less effective at rebuilding the military; I was there.
I never said this. Nothing close. But your post still does not explain why the military suddenly became so underfunded when its funding went up form what it was in 1976 and increased each year. I guess this is what I am asking.
To Chapy:
Yesterday I posted this comment:
We’re supposed to eat pork and beans, but Obama has that special $100 per serving steak. (How many servings per pound? Two? Three? Does that make $200-3300 per pound? I can afford prime rib only when it’s on sale.)
You responded with this:
No that was just another subtle tactic MM uses to distort things. She starts out by assuming the absolute upper price range for that beef (many wagyu cuts are much cheaper) saying its $100/lb but them that magically gets transformed to $100 a serving later on.
My comment to you:
Where can I find Wagu steak in my price range? I buy beef on sale and cannot afford prime rib except for holidays.
I don’t think you understand the point I was making. Lowering temperatures, saving on fuel, etc. is for the masses, not the ruling class.
The ruling class, now headed by Obama, reminds me of Louis the XIV,the Sun King. Louie and Marie lived in another world, completely protected from the masses and surrounded by bowing and scraping syncopants and apologists.
That’s the point I was making. Well… gotta leave. Hamburger is on sale for $2.99 per pound (not per serving) and I suppose I’ll just make chili for dinner. Kidney beans are on sale too, for $.50 can. For $5.00, I can have dinner for four. Now where can I get Wagu beef for $2.99 pound?
Helene,
I get your point. And its still valid. But MM makes it seem worse than it is.
Have you ever added just a touch (and I mena be real judicious) of cinnamon to chili? It adds a certain something, a background note, that is really diffcult to place unless you know what it is. I highly recommend it.
But again, if you do, add just a wee pinch (like an 8th to a quarter of a tsp for a batch you would make with about 3 or 4 lbs of meat.)
A simple case of enough being too little: As a PS teacher, I’ve served on one committee after another that has had to go back & redo its next year’s projected budget because of shortfalls in the amount of expected increases in state-fed ed funds and grants; thus while we receive nominal increases in our funding, it’s often barely enough to cover current expenses plus inflation and we are left short in meeting planned purchases for new texts and tech.
Similarly, Carter underfunded the military by cutting the amount of expected increases, resulting in budgets that contained only nominal funds to meet the baseline needs of our armed services plus inflation and/or unexpected expenses, but not enough to invest in R&D tech and additional equipment purchases.
Our military was left weak and vulnerable because of these spending cuts, and they were cuts, just like the ones Obama is proposing now.
Which is why Chancellor’s, Cronkite’s, and Reasoner’s newscasts all contained nearly nightly reports on America’s “window of [military] vulnerability.”
At what rate will Russia and China cut their defense budgets? Seems like everytime we get unprepared someone takes a potshot at us. I do not favor cutting the F-22 or cutting any aircraft group when the world is as dangerous as it is. If the Demos wanted to save money why don’t we use some world war two planes, carriers and tanks to provide the defense. Look at the money they would save.
As I recall, inflation was pretty wicked during the Carter administration.
So DBN, this is true even though the increase in the DOD budget out paced inflation during the same period(38% to 32%)?
I am not disputing at all what you say the conventional wisdom was during the time, I am just curious if it is actually true.
I mean I can see if this would basically lead to an effective flatline in funding, but it seems something else to say he cut it.
Tell me when was the last time the MSM decried the failure of a sitting Democrat to adequately fund our military – yet they did during the latter half of Carter’s presidency, and they documented it. So this is one-time I’ll trust their judgment over manipulatable gov numbers.
In case anyone is still reading this, here is Obama’s huge “cut” to DoD.
A $14 billion (8%) increase in spending.
$527 billion total. What did I estimate it would be? 526? Dang. Off by a billion.
And as I expected, the $584 billion draft “budget” that the yahoos on Fox News used to scream “Cut!” was a political ploy meant to put Obama in a difficult position rather than a realistic budget assessment.
And if no one else is reading this thread I have no doubt someone will blather the Fox News mantra again on some other thread.