Pirates – 11, Navy – 0, Dana Hughes and Kirit Radia from ABC News :
A U.S. Navy ship has sunk a pirate “mother ship” in the Indian Ocean and captured 11 pirates, and then promptly let them go.
While those five pirates remain in custody, the 11 captured Thursday were allowed to leave in small skiffs after the mother ship was sunk. The action prompted a Pentagon spokesman to deny that the Navy had a “catch and release” policy regarding pirates
N0t good gentlemen. A live pirates can return, but not a dead one. I smell the heavy hand of the Eric Holder.
Tea Party participants defy stereotype, Shannon Travis:
Grand Junction, Colorado (CNN ) — They are not typical Tea Party activists: A woman who voted for President Obama and believes he’s a “phenomenal speaker.” Another who said she was a “knee-jerk, bleeding heart liberal.”
These two women are not alone.
Some Americans who say they have been sympathetic to Democratic causes in the past — some even voted for Democratic candidates — are angry with President Obama and his party
Might I suggest that the MSM needs revise there talking points.
Evidently no one ever told Dim Won about Keith Olbermann, from Weazel Zippers :
UNBELIEVABLE: ‘It’s Troublesome’: Obama Slams Beck & Limbaugh for ‘This Kind of Vitriol’This man is supposed to be OUR President, not just ‘President of those who bow down before him’. Nothing he does or says is Presidential. Everyday he proves he is a disgrace to his title, Our Country, and to Her People . . .
It is troubling having a dumb, arrogant president who is so willing to lie to the American people. Rush Limbaugh did not crash the economy. Sean Hannity is not driving up health care costs. It is the president who is.
Now I am not want to call Obama smart, much less a student of recent political history. Yet you have wonder about a teleprompter dependent politician calling out a talk show host by name, Limbaugh, who has made career out talking and thinking at the same time, and without the need a teleprompter.
It is always appropriate to respond up the chain. Limbaugh did and Byron York, Washington Examiner  has it:
“I have yet to have a down year at the EIB Network,” Limbaugh responds. “I and most Americans do not believe President Obama is trying to do what’s best for the country. Never in my life have I seen a regime like this, governing against the will of the people, purposely. I have never seen the media so supportive of a regime amassing so much power. And I have never known as many people who literally fear for the future of the country.”
The point, Limbaugh says, is not that listeners are feeling anxiety about the economy, although many undoubtedly are. It’s that they are feeling anxiety about the Obama agenda.
So let us compare on contrast: in their current job, Limbaugh twenty years, no down years. Obama, one years plus, failure of stimulus, health care, estranged allies, in short of failure of government. If Obama was in touch with the voters like Limbaugh was touch with his audience, Obama would not be polling in the forties.
Next on the Obama agenda, war on energy.
Last on BO, Dan offers Obama some Riehl good advice, Riehl World View :
You can’t run a PR campaign and be an effective chief exec. But as Obama and the image they created for him is the only card they have, they seem resigned to simply trying to play it again and again – whether it’s worked in the past, or not.
It hasn’t worked except when played against the already faithful since the day after he was elected. And I don’t anticipate that changing between now and the fall. Limbaugh now has a free pass to stiff arm Obama for days to come. And he’s smart enough and been doing it so long, I doubt very much if he hurts himself in the process. He’s the pro here, Obama is the amateur. And when the stiff-arms start flying, I think it’s fair to predict that it’s Obama, not Limbaugh who will still be left on his back and down in the polls when this latest WH play ends
Pondering the purpose of nuke, from Johnathan Schell, Nation :
What is the purpose, if any, of the nuclear bomb, that brooding presence that has shadowed all human life for sixty-five years? The question has haunted the nuclear age. It may be that no satisfactory answer has ever been given. Nuclear strategic thinking, in particular, has disappointed. Many of its pioneers have wound up in a state of something like despair regarding their art. For example, Bernard Brodie, one of the originators of nuclear strategy in the 1940s, was forced near the end of his life to realize that “nuclear strategy itself–the body of thoughts that he himself had helped formulate–was something of an illusion,” according to historian Fred Kaplan
Simple, remember 1944, the last year before the down of the nuclear age. While Schell may not remember the year or may pine to return to it, I for one do not. Do you?