Sunday, November 29, 2009

Climategate Bombshells Continue

This is from Libertarian Republican: Lord Monkton Announces Criminal Investigations. Happening on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

From Bombshell after Bombshell continues to emerge from the leaked documents behind the academic Berlin Wall at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the Univ. of East Anglia. The latest developments, the Vicount of Brenchly and Professor Fred Singer have filed a joint request with the UK Information Minister to investigate the possibly criminal wrongdoings of the Scientists involved in this scandal..."

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Meet Carol Browner, White House Energy
and Climate Change Czar

"A neon green extremist who headed the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993-2000" is how Carol Browner is introduced in Michelle Malkin's book, Culture of Corruption. Browner also served as former Senator Al ManBearPig Gore's legislative director. So yeah, she's got the proper creds and connections for the job. Malkin says she's also one-half of a "prototypical Washington power couple." Together with husband Tom Downey, the couple were lobbyists for Dubai Ports World--the United Arab Emirate-owned company that unsuccessfully sought to take over operations of six major U.S. ports. It goes without saying that the woman is a multi-millionaire as a result of her work with the lobbyist company. So much for Obama's sweeping pledge against evil lobbyists in his administration, since as we know, exceptions to that campaign promise started on Obama Administration Day One.

"Sucked back into the beltway swamp"--that's how Malkin describes Browner's re-entry into the White House scene. On 15 Dec 2008, Obama named Browner to the position of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, another of Obama's czar-appointments that requires no Senate confirmation. Could she have been confirmed by the Senate if necessary? Probably, considering the culture of corruption in Washington these days, even though Browner was a major player in overseeing the destruction of EPA computer files at the end of her term, a brazen violation of a federal judge's order requiring the agency to preserve its records. The account of Browner's destruction of federal records is chronicled and documented in Malkin's book. Her excuse when confronted with her order given to an agency technician to purge her files: she explained that she was "cleaning the hard drive of computer games" and that her work computer contained no work-related material. No wonder when asked by reporters about the hacked Climategate emails, her initial reply was a shrug.

Not only is she a millionaire lobbyist, but Browner is also a socialist, a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International. Don't look for her on the Socialist International website, however, since her picture and biography was scrubbed from the website as soon as she was tapped by ObamaTeam for his administration. What is Socialist International? According to the Washington Examiner, the group is "an influential assembly of officials from across the international community whose official Statement of Principles describes an agenda of gaining and exercising government power based on socialist concepts." Translation: by appointing Browner to the White House post, Obama clearly shows, to those who care to read the tea leaves, that he endorses a radical socialist agenda for his administration's environmental policy.

Look for more from this woman during the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, December 6-19.

Update. Oh hooray. Our Climate Czar, the one who says the science of global warming is "settled," has a B.A. in English from the University of Florida. And, naturally, she also has a law degree--from the same place. Yep, she has great creds to be Obama's Assistant for Energy and Climate Change.

"The most costly and widespread scientific fraud in history"

Updates below

It's becoming clear that, despite the lamestream media's best efforts, the fraud now known as Climategate is too enormous to be covered up. There's an excellent article at Pajamas Media this morning: "Climategate: It's the Totalitarianism, Stupid." The leaked emails "are just the tiny tip of a very large and dangerous iceburg that is even now ripping the rivets off  your Titanic," writes James Lewis to the "scientists" that have been pushing this fraud like your friendly neighborhood crack whore. He warns that these people had better have tenure, because "this is going to get very bloody very quickly."

I honestly don't know how much of the details of what is happening in this scandal is making its way into the lamestream media, since I don't watch the network news, I don't read Newsweek or Time, I don't read the NYT or my local fishwrap paper. I'm sure those outlets are hoping we're all distracted by turkey, squabbling with extended family, and our obsession with Black Friday (how ironically well-named that day is) shopping. Here's the Cliff Notes version of the scandal: A hacker or possibly an insider whistle-blower broke into the servers at Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and published at least 61 megabytes of confidential data on a Russian website. [Nov. 28 update: It's now 128 megabytes of secret emails and other data, posted by someone calling himself "FOIA"--heh. One wag says that these emails are the equivalent of the Nixon tapes during Watergate, only far more accurate than John Dean's memory.

Who are the CRU and why do they matter? They are one of the primary information sources used by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any "debate" related to climate change. [I put the scare quotes around the word "debate" because Leftists don't debate the issue--they use the phrase "settled science" and call anyone who disagrees with their point of view a "flat-earther." Typical Leftist debate tactics--call names because THEY'VE GOT NOTHING.] The IPCC is the same scientific intergovernmental body that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ManBearPig Al Gore. Discrediting  the IPCC would call into question the very basis for the doom-laden predictions of rising sea levels and rising temperatures due to man-made CO2.

The emails are not just "a few emails trickling out" like Obama's esteemed Climate Czar, Carol Browner [scroll down to Update #2], is desperate for the lamestream media to report. Instead, the data being leaked is over a decade's worth of documents and emails (1,079 emails and 72 documents--so far). An Australian blogger [God bless bloggers], Andrew Bolt, says that the CRU may be guilty of "conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, private admission of flaws in their public claims, and much more."

That's what Bolt was saying last week. Today, November 28 (29 in Australia) he quotes Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, on the true significance of Climategate: "It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy."

Tipler says in his article that a number of scientists have been trying for years to get the data from CRU (that same data that has now been hacked) placed online, which the CRU is required by law to release. CRU has claimed that the raw data was "accidentally erased." For the love of God, the stupidity and arrogance of these people is simply mind-boggling.

Tipler writes: "The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up." Isaac Asimov wrote about the seriousness of scientists falsifying data in his novel, Whiff of Death. Asimov advocated execution; Tipler feels being dismissed from their jobs would be sufficient. I don't agree. I'd like to see something along the lines of a scientific Nuremberg Trial for these frauds and fakers, with appropriate fines and prison terms levied at the worst of them.

Tipler says he doubts that anything will happen to these traitorous frauds, since they are busy bringing in huge grants to their universities, and the salaries of the bureaucrats who run the universities are dependent on this grant money. Follow the money--it works every time. Returning to the Lewis article, Lewis concludes: The most important take home lesson is that the global warming fraud was the clear and conscious work of a political machine aiming to steal your money, your liberties, and your country. It was a massive, worldwide attempt at a coup d’etat, and the victims were going to include all the free and prosperous peoples of the world. Hitler had his Reichstag fire. Today’s transnational left had its global warming fraud. The political goal was exactly the same: maximum power through maximum fear.

There are so many friends and acquaintances I want to say, "I told you so" to about this issue. I'm not saying, like they did, that the issue is "settled." Of course I want cleaner air and water and healthy food. I believe in stewardship and passing on a better world to my children and grandchildren just as much as any "green" agenda-holder. Working to make the world a cleaner place is a noble goal. However, I have never agreed with this man-made climate change hoax. Too many people were out chasing too much power and money for this thing to be real. However, so many of the people I know, a group of otherwise reasonably intelligent and educated people, have almost to a man or woman been absolutely unwilling to engage with me on this issue. Period. "Being green" has become like a religion for some of them; these global warmists seem taken over by the issue almost like the kool aid drinker-followers of Jim Jones. It's been truly disturbing to watch, mostly because they can't get out of their own way long enough to see how narrow and holier-than-thou they've become. They come at the issue of cleaning up the planet with a kind of intellectually and morally supior attitude that is distasteful. And it's not as if they say, "We're going to just have to agree to disagree." No, they simply will not concede that there might be another side to the issue. I used to try to get people on the globalwarmism side to at least admit that there might be a political agenda attached to their side of the argument, but even that slight concession has been beyond their ability or willingness to see because of the greener-than-thou blinders they wear. They've all been too busy changing their CFL light bulbs and looking down their noses at people who don't follow lock-step their green agenda--"changing the world, one light bulb at a time." Arguing with idiots, indeed.

We know that the spin is in--that people set up to benefit from this colossol hoax will be spinning like mad to discredit the information coming out about the systematic global warming / climate change fraud. Ignore the story (look at that shiny thing over there), trivialize the findings (a couple of emails), protect the revenue-producing projects, cover their collective ass. Watching this unravel is going to be an interesting ride. You could sell tickets.

Update. HotAir is reporting (Sunday, Nov 29) that East Anglia CRU (Climate Research Unit, the crew that feeds data to the UN's IPCC on which the UN Climate Change reports are based) THREW OUT THEIR RAW DATA. OK, is anyone out there a scientist? Or did anyone ever take a high school or college science class? When you wrote up the report on your experiment, did you tell you professor, "Oops, sorry, I threw out my raw data for this experiment." If you did, how did that go over? Big, I bet. Did your professor pat you on the head and say, "That's OK, Little Bobby, I'll give you an 'A' for effort anyway"? These fraudulent hacks are actually admitting that they threw out the raw data on which much of their theories on anthropogenic global warming are based.

Concludes Ed Morrissey at HotAir: The bullying atmosphere in Academia on AGW [Anthropomorphic Global Warming] has ruined the credibility of the effort — and not just at the University of East Anglia. Any PhD student in the field would have known on which side the bread would be buttered, and would be unlikely to commit career suicide by producing contradictory data. The actions of the IPCC authors created an atmosphere of groupthink, paranoia, and toadyism, not science or truth. Any results coming from this arena have to be entirely suspect. The AGW movement has been exposed as a religious belief and a political cash cow, not science.

Well said, Ed.

TigerHawk has more about the destroyed CRU data.

Update #2. From the UK Telegraph: "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation"

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

This article is an excellent read, putting "Climategate" into context.

Update #3. More on the spin. Here's an article from "Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away": opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.

Hi-larious. Image credit:

Friday, November 27, 2009

CBS Evening "News"?

Quote from Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff: "Fox News is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Quote from David Axelrod, Obama senior advisor: "Fox News shouldn't be treated as a news organization."

Quote from Anita Dunn, former White House communications director: "Fox News is a GOP mouthpiece whose programming is geared toward making money."

Quote from Barack Obama, president: "Fox News operates basically as a talk radio format."

Quote from Katie Couric, anchor, CBS Evening News:

This is unreal. Couric's blatant advocacy "poem" for ObamaCare must surely be a new low for what used to be evening news. Although with her ratings, almost no one saw this anyway.

Oh, and by the way--Katie, for someone who "reads" professionally and gets paid big, big bucks for doing it, you really suck at reading poetry. A 10-year-old with a couple of practice run-throughs could have done a better job. Just sayin'.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


The lamestream media, predictably, isn't reporting what's going on with Climategate. Those who get their news from the Perky Katie Couric or Newsweek or MSNBC haven't heard about this. Libertarian Republican has a good take on the media spin of this story.

We're on vacation this week, and we've been doing our own informal poll of waitresses, people at hotel front desks, and people who take our money at the "You-Gas 'Em" places. We're 0 for 10 on those people having heard about the hacked "Climagegate" emails.

Video from Minnesotans for Global Warming

We've also "sort of" talked to our liberal relatives while we've been on this trip. Although it's funny about them--those that lean 'way Left consistently run from political talk like their hair was on fire. In fact, they evidently talk among themselves ahead of time--"If those crazy right-wing bastards start talking politics, be sure you shut them down right away." They will talk about their latest trip to Germany or their new Prius--anything but politics. I think it's because, since they get all their "news" from Time magazine or the local fishwrap newspaper, they have nothing to say when we ask, "Have you heard about the hundreds of emails that prove all this climate change nonsense is a hoax?" Their answer is, "Nope, haven't heard about that, but have we told you about our latest cruise plans?"

Not to worry: they're only missing the greatest scandal in science since Gallileo was called up before the Inquisition and forced to recant his belief in the Copernicum system and live for the rest of his life under house arrest.

Here's what they could learn, if they wanted to, or if they knew what a "blog" was. Interesting that this comes from the UK press and not our own. According to the UK Telegraph, in an article titled "Climategate: The final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?, there's been, on the part of global warmism scientists (should we really still call them "scientists"?):
  • manipulation of evidence
  • private doubts about whether the earth is really heating up
  • suppression of evidence
  • fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists
  • attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
  • how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process
From PJTV: Three thing you absolutely must know about Climategate
  1. Scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results.
  2. Scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication.
  3. Scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.
P.S. So I thought Obama had decided not to go to Copenhagen and the climate change conference. Obviously, I was wrong. Evidently he's going to spend one day in Copenhagen on his way to Oslo, Norway, where he'll accept his Nobel Peace Prize. Obama has a way of making a mess of everything he does, so in a way I'm glad he's going to Copenhagan.

Update: Rush Limbaugh and me: great minds think alike. On his website he says about Obama going to Copenhagan: "This is actually good news. Everywhere he goes he is an abysmal failure, whether it is to secure the Olympics for Chicago or whether it's to China. Who's he going to bow down to over there?"

This is from Reuters (again, no U.S. journalists are reporting this): Most nations have given up hopes of agreeing to a binding legal treaty text in Copenhagen, partly because of uncertainty about what the United States will be able to offer. Let me guess: the nations of the world hoped that Obama would lead them towards a global warming treaty in Copenhagen (or Hope-enhagen, as one wag puts it). United States to World: Obama couldn't lead you out of a hole in the ground. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Update #2: Reported by the Washington Times, Obama's Climate Czar, Carol Browner, says that for her, the hacked emails don't change anything. Oh my, how shocked I am to hear that /sarc. She says she considers the science of global warmism to be "settled." The Washington Times uses language in the article that includes calling the emails "a point of debate," and that they "appear" to show that scientists have "smoothed over" the data. The article concludes: Ms. Browner initially shrugged when asked about the e-mails, saying she didn't have a reaction. But when a reporter followed up, she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is happening and is most likely being pushed by human actions.

Rather than "smoothed over," I think a better phrase is "fudged the numbers" or maybe "totally lied about." Browner's dismissive attitude about the thousands of leaked emails (or in her words, the emails that are "trickling" out) is just another example of a Leftist who doesn't give a damn about facts. Big surprise there! They also don't want to be put in a position of having an honest debate about an issue, because more times than not, the facts, as in the case of the global warmism hoax, are simply not on their side. So if you can't beat 'em with the facts, then just "smooth over" the data, since everyone knows that the science of global climate change is settled. Czar Browner simply asserts in her comments to reporters that those who don't believe in global warming are "very few in number." Well, then, that settles the issue for me! What a poltroon.

Update #3: Hat tip to Gateway Pundit: Protesters Chase Junk Scientist Al Gore Down the Street After Book Signing. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

P.P.S. Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the lack of "passion" in any of Obama's public speeches of late? The perks may be great, but I think the guy really hates this job.

Newsflash: Campaigning Is Easier than Leading

Rasmussen has been tracking the Presidential disapproval ratings since Obama's first day in office. The -15 comes from taking the difference between those who "strongly approve" and those who "strongly disapprove." On his first day of office, the number was +30. It's been downhill since. Obama has been -15 for two days in a row now. That's his lowest approval number since he started in office.

One of the biggest shifts in the approval/disapproval numbers comes from Independents: 51% now strongly disapprove, vs. 16% who strongly approve.

Monday, November 23, 2009

What If . . . ?

I'm pretty sure that Palin beats Michelle-o hands down in the "Who Should (or Shouldn't) Show Off Their Legs?" department.

Hat tip to Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog. Original image at

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Oh for the love of crap, my head may explode: Lady Michelle Obama Gives a Mentoring Conference to High School Students in Denver, Colorado about "Success"--Why learn English?

South High School, Denver, CO, c. 1925, as seen from Washington Park

You could take a picture today from the same spot in the park, and the school probably wouldn't look much different. Obviously, looks are deceiving.

Thirty-seven people in my family have graduated from South High in Denver, Colorado--that's four generations, including my father, uncles, aunts, and many first and second cousins. My brothers and I would have graduated from South if we had lived across the street from where we were living when we went to high school--OUR LOSS, but that discussion is for a different day. My father's family was Dutch. His father came to America when he was 14 years old, not speaking much English. Like many immigrants, he spoke English with a slight accent all his life. But of course all of  his children spoke English as a first language, even though they lived in a neighborhood that was probably 95% or more Dutch and were members of a Dutch church. It would have been completely unthinkable for my father and his siblings not to learn English. Unthinkable.

Yesterday, Lady Michelle Obama appeared at a Governor's luncheon in Denver for a "mentoring initiative." According to the Denver Post, the First Lady spoke to approximately 80 high school girls at a Denver luncheon on Monday to encourage them to be successful.

Here's a quote about the event from one of my favorite blogs, Michell Obama's Mirror's Blog.

When South High Student Body President Linda Jiminez complained to Lady M about how unfair standardized testing was because in her school many students don’t even speak English, MO just explained that that’s the oppressive system that white men have put in place and it’s not likely to go away any time soon. Then she went on to explain that she herself, who did speak English, didn’t do so hot on standardized tests in high school either. But when it came time to pick a college, she said Princeton looked mostly at her writing and leadership skills, as well as her extra curricular activities. So I guess being president of the stamp collectors club really paid off for her.

Are you kidding me? So why don't high school students at South High in Denver, Colorado NOT SPEAK ENGLISH? Let me guess: (1) The school, run by the teachers' union, DOES NOT REQUIRE them to learn to speak English. (2) Their community, including their families, SEES NO VALUE in their children learning to speak English.

Suffice it to say, I am completely beyond distress by South High Student Body President Linda Jiminez's remarks to Lady Michelle. To the point where I simply can't continue here right now or my head will explode. Three generations at South High in Denver,Colorado: the first one, learning English as a first language and teaching their parents English at home; the second one, who wouldn't even be able to imagine students in their school not being able to speak English; the third one, the students don't speak English.What's wrong with this picture?

Of course it would never have occurred to Lady Michelle to ask that young woman: "Why do you think your classmates don't speak English? Do you see that as a problem? What could be done about that?" It wouldn't have occurred to Lady Michelle to point out to this woman that the issue of not speaking English in the United States goes beyond some perceived "unfairness" on an SAT test, but is central to the issue of how these non-English-speaking students will be able to survive in their English-speaking culture--not thrive, but merely survive. What is wrong with people? It's a theme throughout this blog: Political Correctness and some whacked out ideal of cultural diversity is destroying our country.

Oh, and excuse me. Why is a student who can't speak English taking an SAT test in the first place? Good grief. Unless the student plans to speak Spanish exclusively at their OUT OF STATE college? Which also ignores the fun little fact that there are evidently students graduating from high school from a public school in Denver, Colorado who DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH. Would someone please explain to me exactly when it was we lost our country?

Update. Michelle's Harlequin Romance. Oh barf, to add insult to injury. Now the press is calling her weird tool belts her "signature" belted look. You knew that was coming. From the Denver Post: Along with her "signature" belted cardigan, Obama paired the gray argyle cardigan with a navy- blue skirt overlaid with a gold argyle pattern. With her hair upswept and wearing an armful of pearl bracelets, she was confident, chic and assured — a fashion mentor, to be sure. I call that a harlequin pattern, not argyle, although I guess it's a close call. What's with that, anyway? For a woman  for whom money is no object, I think her choices are bizarre. I guess the mere fact of money doesn't necessarily give you fashion sense. My idea of hell would be to have to dress up for the cameras every day--and then find my outfit written up in every newspaper. I don't envy her the job, but it is what she signed up to do. Is she proud of her country now?

P.S. This photo was on the front page of the Denver Post today. It's --ahem-- "no longer available" on line. I guess her handlers didn't like it. The teeth are sort of vampire-ish, and it also shows off to excellent effect that Star Wars helmet hairdo. Hat tip to my partner in crime, nobackindown, a frequent commenter here.

She could complete the look with socks.

Story Time With Obama: "First" Pacific President

I have a relative who is a toxic narcissist. This person plays havoc with my efforts at family history research, because she tells completely convincing stories that later, after much work on my part, I find are totally fabricated. Oh sure, they always contain a grain of truth, but the small bits of truth her stories hang on make them more difficult to track down, not less. Her stories are both grandiose and often self-contradictory, yet the contradiction doesn't seem to bother her. In fact, she becomes insulted if you point the contradictions out to her--as if you're supposed to just "go along" and your failure to do so is a moral failure on your part. She would have made a good novelist if she had decided to put her gift for fabrication to good use.

When I read of some of the stories that Obama tells about himself, I hear the same grandiosity, the same self-contradiction, whether trivial or serious, the same inability to tell the truth about anything. Narcissists will lie, straight to your face, even if telling the truth would be easier. It's almost as if they do it to keep in practice. They surely do it to be "one up" on their audience.

Obama's latest narcissistic fairy tale about himself is that he's "America's first Pacific president," something he was heard to say in Tokyo: "As America's first Pacific president, I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world."

Put aside for a minute the confusing reference of "this" Pacific nation in the above statement. Honestly, I'm not sure which nation he's referring to there, but that's for another post. What this post is about is his fantasy about being "America's" first Pacific president.

True, he was born in Hawaii (well, I guess it's true--for the sake of argument, we'll say it's true). But he left there after he graduated from prep school; his young adult years were spent at Columbia in New York, Harvard in Cambridge, and in Chicago. Not very Pacific, except that he vacations there now, so that counts, right? Especially when he stays on the Island of Oahu, the island where he was raised by his grandparents. Only now he stays with friends in a cluster of privately owned beachfront mansions, his specifically being an $8 million, 12,000-square-foot oceanfront vacation home. We wouldn't want our president slumming it, that's for sure, and--come on now, you Obama-hating critics--obviously staying at a shack on the beach adds to his Pacific creds.

So those are his Pacific credentials. What about the other part of the statement--his ridiculous assertion about being "first" Pacific president? That's not even remotely true, as a quick look at some facts shows. Hat tip to John J. Pitney Jr., the Roy P. Crocker Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College (a Pacific college).
  • President Richard Nixon, born in California in 1913. Nixon spent much more of his adult life in a "Pacific" region that Obama has. Much.
  • President Ronald Reagan. Governor of the "Pacific" state of California. He also owned a ranch northwest of "Pacific" Santa Barbara,  California.
  • President Dwight Eisenhower. He had military postings in the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone.
  • President William Howard Taft. He was governor-general of the Philippines.
  • President Herbert Hoover. He worked as a mining engineer in Australia and China; he learned to speak fluent Mandarin.
  • Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41 all served in the Pacific during the Second World War. As Professor Pitney points out, what those presidents did as adults was perhaps more consequential that Obama's childhood link to Hawaii--or his adult link to the Islands as vacationing millionaire beach bum.
I will admit, though, just like my own relative, Obama's stories about himself are entertaining, and it's amusing to imagine what he'll come up with next.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Newsweek: Doing Its Own Self-Parody

I'm old enough to remember when Newsweek was actually a news magazine. Now it's just a shill for ObamaTeam and other Leftists. But even at that, this week's cover is a new low, even for them. What they've done is use a photo of Sarah Palin that was published by Runner's World magazine. It was perfectly appropriate for the Runner's World article. It is perfectly inappropriate for Newsweek. I guess what they hope is that people seeing the cover will somehow believe that it's Sarah Palin who is being inappropriate. The editors at Newsweek are a bunch of adolescent buffoons. I wouldn't waste my time reading the article. What passes for "writing" at Newsweek these days literally isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

This isn't the first time that Newsweek has done dirt to Palin. The last time they put a closeup of her face on the cover that was untouched. There probably isn't another person on the planet that they would have done that to--well, maybe Glenn Beck. This stuff is really amateur hour. Whoever is propping up Newsweek's financials is surely going to get tired of flushing money down the drain every single week that they continue to be in business. I don't know what this quarter is looking like for them, but back in July it was reported that the magazine was losing millions every week and that their advertising was down 40%.

RIP Newsweek--the sooner the better.

Update. I actually heard some doofus on one of the opinion news shows tonight comment on the Newsweek cover: "If Sarah Palin wants to be taken seriously by the Republican party, then she needs to wear a dress--all the time. Harumph!"  So I guess this guy is under the impression that Palin had editorial control over the cover? Maybe I'm just trying to make sense out of nonsense. What a maroon.

Update #2. This comes from Palin's facebook page. The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness – a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention – even if out of context.

I love that "color of skin" dig she gets in there. Go Sarah. I like Sarah Palin very much, but I'm not enthusisastic about her being a presidential candidate in 2012 for many of the same reasons that I hated Obama's candidacy in 2008--neither one of them are qualified for the position, and we can see how well that's working out for Obama and the country. However, I would like to see Palin get into the mix somehow for 2010 and 2012 because she absolutely flips the Leftist nutroots into crazy. I hope she can find a really good role for herself that doesn't involve running for president in 2012. I also hope she scares the crap out of the Left, making them think she might.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Maybe He Should Have Bowed

US President Barack Obama speaks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during meetings in Singapore, site of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, November 15, 2009.

Obama is all about showing the world how second-rate the United States is so that the world will "like us better." They may be buying the "second rate" bit, but I don't think they like us better for it, if Medvedev giving Obama the finger here is any indication. Obama clearly needs his girly-girl Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett to remind him to "speak truth to power." Or maybe if he were to try bowing to Medvedev, that would work better for him? What an embarrassing putz he is.

Here's Obama's first meeting with Medvedev--Oh, that went so well.

"He's sending a signal: he doesn't want to be a wartime president who wins the war, and that is deadly"

The above quote is from Bing West, who says that President Obama has now spent a couple of months openly questioning his own military--"that's just about unprecedented for a president to do."

The video discusses a couple of books about Vietnam which illustrate two fundamentally different views of the war: 1) Lessons in Disaster, by Gordon M Goldstein; and 2) A Better War, by Lewis Sorley. Gordon's thesis was that the Vietnam war was was unwinnable, that the war was a "tragic mistake." This is a book evidently given to Obama by Rahm Emanuel. Soreley, on the other hand, says we lost Vietnam not because of a poor military strategy, but because of Capitol Hill's lack of resolve.

Kudos to Calvin Freiburger at NewsReal who says (and I'm paraphrasing) that Obama has his foreign and domestic strategies upside-down. The Founding Fathers believed that careful deliberation should dominate domestic policy, but understood that defense of the nation in times of war required prompt, bold action. What we have is a president who shows indecision and hesitation on war policy while he jams through his domestic agenda. GP suggests that Obama read the Federalist Papers, a series of 85 essays outlining how the new government would work--read them "the sooner the better."

Update: People are certainly getting fed up with Obama and his unwillingness or inability to make a decision in Afghanistan. This was just one of the posts this morning from a commenter at HotAir. As the frustration level increases, the rhetoric is heating up as well.

I don’t know what Gen McChrystal thinks about all this dithering but, IMO, there should come a point when he offers up his retirement letter as a show of no confidence in the dithering coward that is more interested in worldwide apology tours than the fact that American troops are getting killed while he is out there on the party circuit like some sort of Eurotrash playboy.

My feeling is that Gen McChrystal won't bail on the troops, but I do hope he'll find some way to hold Obama's feet to the fire. As any adult knows, part of making a good decision is making it in a timely manner. If I want to buy a house and I find one I want to buy, but I dither around because I feel like I need to know every possible detail, not only about the move now but also about my life as it may be ten years from now, then chances are the house is going to be sold out from under me because I can't pull the trigger on the decision. So Obama, you may make the "perfect" decision six months from now, but your perfect decision won't be any good if it's eight months too late.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Obama Gives the Middle Finger to "His" Country

Yes, I'm back. I don't want to be, but this is just too much. Tip of the hat to I can't stand it. I am sickened by Barack Hussein Obama's behavior. Obama is clearly doing this on purpose, to "show" America that we are now sliding into third-world country status. These bows and failures on his part to show proper respect to the flag of the United States are clearly meant to demonstrate to the American people EXACTLY what Obama thinks of "his" country: these are deliberate acts that reflect his true values. This bow is a middle finger to the American people and our country. Failed one-term president doesn't begin to describe this moron. The United States bows to no one. Not ever. No one. Obama is doing all this deliberately. I'm convinced of it now. No more "benefit of the doubt." No more thinking he's too stupid to know better. This is the middle finger to the people of the United States. History will judge you, you fuck. I apologize for my Anglo-Saxon expletive, but I'm beyond being flipped into crazy. This fuck needs to go.

I can only infer from what he's doing that Obama is fine with being a one-term president. He will do as much as possible during his four years to destroy the country--which is obviously a great deal. He never really wanted this job in the first place. He's a fluke. A fucking flake. He will happily return to "private life" after his failed four years as president, raking in millions in speaking fees and other monies that he doesn't deserve. Have you noticed that 10 months in office have aged him about 10 years? He isn't up to the task, knows he's not, and will be happy to leave with his millions (billions, sort of like AlGore?) after four years. It's all about him--toxic Narcissist-In-Chief.

Oh my God, are historians 50 years from now going to have a field day with this ass-clown. I only wish I could be here to see it.

Here's the Los Angeles Times, for cripes' sake: "How Low Will He Go? Obama Gives Japan's Emperor Akihito a Wow Bow." Despicable.

Update: Here's a flashback for you, courtesy of HotAir: New York Times Blasts Clinton for Almost Bowing to Akihito.

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir: Now that Obama has done “the unthinkable” twice, and this time to Akihito, will the New York Times have anything to say about it? Will any of the national news media inquire as to whether the Obama administration has changed American protocol from its 233-year norm of not bowing to royalty, and exactly what “hope and change” that represents?

This is from the NYT, 1994, about the Clinton almost-bow: It wasn’t a bow, exactly. But Mr. Clinton came close. He inclined his head and shoulders forward, he pressed his hands together. It lasted no longer than a snapshot, but the image on the South Lawn was indelible: an obsequent President, and the Emperor of Japan. Canadians still bow to England’s Queen; so do Australians. Americans shake hands. If not to stand eye-to-eye with royalty, what else were 1776 and all that about?

Indeed. Good question, NYT. What else was 1776 all about, if not about refusing to kow-tow to royalty? Will the lamestream media report this latest Obomination? I'm not holding my breath.

And how soon will the White House deny this bow?

Tip to the White House Protocol Office: This is how it's done.

Not this.

Update #2: He didn't even get the bow right. According to Thomas Lifson at American Thinker, Obama got the bow wrong. Obama's bow violates a fundamental precept: NO TOUCHING while bowing.

This comes from a Japanese bowing website: When bowing to someone of higher social status, a deeper, longer bow indicates respect. Conversely, a small head nod is casual and informal. However, most Japanese do not expect foreigners to know proper bowing rules and so a nod of the head is usually sufficient. It is also common to bow to express thanks, to apologize, to make a request or to ask someone a favor. Shaking hands is uncommon among the Japanese, but again, exceptions are made for foreigners.

Lifson says the Emporer appears to smile, something polite Japanese do when embarrassed (or angry).

Lifson: Anyone with about two days' familiarity with Japan knows about bowing. The average person in Japan bows dozens of times a day. You see it everywhere. . . . I suspect the poor Emperor was so shocked by the faux pas that he just pretended it didn't happen. That is one way Japanese people deal with breaches of etiquette, especially from the powerful who are also ignorant. But the end resilt is that Obama has been snubbed royally. Imperially, in fact.

I'll ask it again: Where is Obama's chief of protocol? Her name is Capricia Penavic Marshall, and she was sworn in on August 3 of this year. I would think that her main job would be to keep Obama from making these kinds of trans-cultural dumb-azz zingers. Hey Capricia, get busy, because your guy is looking like a real doofus.

From the U.S. Department of State website: Whether rolling out the red carpet for a King visiting the President at the White House, hosting a Prime Minister at the President's guesthouse, traveling overseas with the President, credentialing a new foreign Ambassador, or planning events for the Secretary of State, the duties of the Office of the Chief of Protocol are many and varied.

So far, I would say that Capricia isn't earning her keep. Although I would say from experience, teaching a narcissist new tricks is not an enviable job.

Update. Obama might as well fire his Chief of Protocol and save the taxpayers some money. Never in my life would I have thought I would live to see the day that a President of the United States would disrespect his own country. Simply put, I am humiliated that this man is representing the United States around the world--and maybe that's exactly what he's aiming for. Heads of state do not bow (see the video below from UConn College Republicans).  HotAir reports (thank you, HotAir for reading the Leftist nutroot websites so that I don't have to) that the nutroots on the left are saying that Obama was simply showing cultural sensitivity. Oh barf. No he was not. He was showing how big an ass-clown he can be. He was demonstrating his notion that he would like to take the United States down so that it can be like all the other second or third-rate countries around the world--that was his electoral madate, to embarrass and apologize for our country all around the world. Good work, Champ.

Update #2: This comes under the category of, "Are you kidding me?" The Leftists are of course screaming about how the Right is characterizing Obama's bow, absolving their idiot president with the claim (in their childish way, like they seem so fond of doing--like your little brother did when you were seven and he was five), "Nixon did it too!" Below is the photo of Nixon's "bow" that the Leftists are characterizing as "just like" Obama's. At least Nixon got the bow right--a slight bow with his hands at his side. Obama's lurching bow was so inappropriate, he embarrassed the Japanese people. Or at least they're so embarrassed for him that they're not running that picture of him bent double and shaking hands.

The other brilliant Leftist analogy I'm reading of Obama's cultural faux pas is to sneer "Who cares?" Really?

Nixon's "bow":

Yet Another Update (I've lost count). Michael Ramirez at sees the Obama Wow Bow the same way I do: as a middle-finger salute to his own country.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Breaking News: Hearts and Minds Really Can Be Changed

Click on the link and read this from HillBuzz. Wow--simply wow. Hat tip to Michelle Obama's Mirror's blog.

Here's a clip:

If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.

 Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day. . . . Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us. . . .

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do. They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood. That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.


Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

Read the entire post at HillBuz. It's entirely possible that Barry Obama will do just what he told us he would do--bring us together in postracial unity--but in a way that I'm sure he didn't expect and won't particularly like--unite us all, black, brown, white, yellow, conservative, moderate, liberal--against him and ObamaTeam in 2012. The ultra-Leftists? Well, they're hopeless. Maybe they'd move to France.
The Obligatory Friday Afternoon "Inconvenient News Dump" from ObamaTeam: Janet Napolitano on Illegal Aliens and Eric Holder on Trying Islamic Muslim Terrorists as Civilian Criminals.

Is there a theme here?

I need a break from blogging. I need to focus on my own work and leave this crappy Obama administration alone for a few days. I'm finding it all too easy to get overwhelmed and depressed about ObamaTeam and their systematic destruction of our country. Kudos to those of you who can face down this shit every single day. I think what did it to me today was hearing that Janet Napolitano is "expressing confidence" that Congress is going to settle the illegal alien (my terminology, not hers--remember, this is now a No Political Correctness Blog) issue in 2010.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano expressed confidence Friday that Congress would introduce a comprehensive immigration reform bill in early 2010 and that debate and passage of the legislation could occur before the mid-term elections later that year.

"Comprehensive immigration reform bill"--that's one of those PC phrases that I'm not going to let get by me on this blog anymore. Comprehensive immigration reform = let's give amnesty to all the illegal aliens who have illegally crossed the border. Oh, and let's keep up the fiction that their number is "12 million." Who the hell knows how many there are by now. 20 million? 30 million? 5 million? Who knows, since they are undocumented workers, so by definition any number can only be an estimate. Duh. The Leftists keep throwing out that number I guess because they're pretty sure the rest of us are stupid. And since we act that way so much of the time--that's what we deserve.

So unemployment in America (whoops, another no-no from the PC crowd. Did you know that it's not OK to say "America" if you're referring to the United States? Using "America" suggests geographical chauvinism unless it applies to all people in North America, South America, and Central America; refer instead to people of the United States.) . . . As I was saying, unemployment in America is now north of 10%, but let's push Congress to reward all the illegal aliens for breaking our laws and ignoring our borders. But of course the Dimocrat talking point on the issue continues to be that the illegals are "doing the jobs that Americans won't do." With unemployment "officially" at 10.2%? Really?

So Janet Napolitano and her ilk will see you put in prison if you refuse to buy health insurance, but Dear Illegals will magically be turned into legal citizens. Well, then they'd better put some sort of waiver into the health crap bill: If you're a previously illegal alien (now legal alien) and you refuse to buy health insurance, we will not put you in prison. I'm sure they've already thought of that--surely it's somewhere in those 2000 pages. I'm pretty sure that "legal aliens" will be given health care "insurance" by people who pay taxes--that's you and me, if I'm judging my audience correctly.

It's always bothered me that the very first act of an illegal alien coming across the southern border is to break the laws of the United States, and yet somehow we're supposed to believe these people are going to be upstanding citizens once our laws make them legal. Why? If breaking the law from the very beginning worked so well for them, why would they hesitate to break any damned law they feel like breaking? A nation of laws? Obviously not for them.

And then of course there was the news, put out on a Friday afternoon (ObamaTeam: always dump "inconvenient" news on a Friday afternoon, particularly on a Friday when Weasel Coward Obama is out of the country) that Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, has decided that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, will be prosecuted in a Manhattan federal courtroom.

This is nothing more than a cynical move by the Obama administration to put the Bush administration on trial. This dirtbag isn't a criminal, entitled to all the rights in court of a U.S. citizen who say, for example, has held up a liquor store. He's a terrorist who was captured on the battlefield and should therefore be tried by a military court. He is not entitled to the protections in court that are available to civilians who commit crimes. The Attorney General's argument that he's "confident" that the scum will be convicted in civil court is completely beside the point.

The ACLU has called the cynical decision "an enormous victory for the rule of law," so we don't have to go any farther than that to understand what an absolutely terrible decision this is. Count on Charles Krauthammer to be the adult in the room, speaking on this issue: Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.

Krauthammer's remarks were mild compared to Rudy Giuliani's earlier in the day. Giuliani is beside himself in this interview. I wish RG had run a better campaign in 2008. I wish I knew what really happened with him in the primaries. I would have voted for him in a New York minute, as they say. He says the President has made a dangerous and irresponsible decision. He also points out, "A week ago we had another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil." And why this administration has trouble figuring that out, Giuliani says he finds that to be  "frightingly incompetent." He continues: "They have elevated to a point of irrationality process over safety. . . . This was an act of war. . . . like Pearl Harbor. We would not have tried the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii," he said. "These are soldiers in a war against us, and the rules of war should apply." He calls it "a foolish state of denial" and a "terrible mistake."

Giuliani makes another good point: of course the bag of dirt's lawyers will ask for a change of venue. They will argue, how can he possibly get a "fair trial" in Manhattan? Criminal defense lawyers have an obligation to do everything they can to see that their client is acquitted. Duh, Eric Holder. But Holder knows that, which is why this is such a cynical move on his part.Giuliani: "The defense lawyers will try to put the United States government on trial. . . . Our criminal justice system is geared to let guilty people go free, if there is any doubt."

Giuliani says that this decision on the part of the Obama administration is part of a bigger picture. It goes back to the fact that we're not supposed to use the word "war on terror." "Who do we think we're fooling by that?" He points out that we've elevated political correctness and elevated what other people think of us and elevated concerns of people in the Islamic community. He calls the decision "a discretionary choice of political ideology. . . . This is the application of a political ideology which is now overcoming what I would regard as common sense. It comes right from the top. Absolutely. It began by telling us that we can't describe this as the war on terror, the failure to use the word, 'Islamic extremism.' The failure, immediately, to point out that Hasan's attack was for the same reason as the attack on September 11th. . . coming out of the same movement, Islamic terrorism. That should be distinguished at every point from honest, decent Muslims. . . . If we are in denial, we are going to put ourselves in greater danger, and we are going to have more casualties."

This is on your head, Barack. You own it, Champ. He's your attorney general and he's doing your bidding. You can run away from owning this decision (oh, it's my attorney general who decided this--bull!), but you can't hide. Eric Holder is reporting that this was his decision--he told Obama about it but didn't consult with him. What's the Svengali thing that Obama seems to have over all these people around him, that so many of them are willing to give him cover? OF COURSE he made this decision with Obama's knowledge and approval. Oh, and a reminder: Eric Holder worked for a law firm that represented Gitmo detainees. Holder's background is one of defending terrorists, not of prosecuting them. Are we really meant to believe him when he says that he's "confident" this dirtbag will be found guilty?

A person can only take so much of this shit, which is part of the Leftists' Saul Alinsky tactics, straight up, baby. I know that, yet I still can't take it. So I'm going to go away for a few days and work on my own stuff--that's all I really can control anyway, right? I'll be back; I just need a break from the ugly Leftist loons who have taken over my country.
Which Country Does He Pledge His Allegiance To? It Doesn't Seem to Be This One

And it's not the first time.

Who is Obama's chief of protocol? Does he have one yet? Here's the rule, Champ. It's actually pretty simple. During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.  -- United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171

Have we ever had a president who either forgot or refused to pay his respects to the flag during the national anthem? Does Obama do this on purpose, or is he this dumb? It's one or the other. He's either deliberately disrespecting the country he represents as president, or he's too dumb to remember to salute the flag. I don't see another option here. I guess one other option might be that he thinks it doesn't matter. You know what, Champ? It matters.

Update: This video is going viral on the internet right now--three people have sent it to me. There's nothing in it that's new, but when you see the clips put together in one video, frankly, it makes you wonder--is this why he won't call Malik Nadal Hasan a radical Islamic terrorist? However, as someone once said, "we shouldn't jump to conclusions." Heh.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

It Should Frighten Everyone That This Deranged Woman Is One of the Most Powerful People in This Government--Seriously, I Think the Woman Is Mentally Ill Crazy**

I'm not kidding, I think the past year has put so much stress on Nanzi Pelosi that she's around the bend--she's bat-shit crazy, which is a clinical term that we used in psychiatric nursing in the late 1970s when psychiatric patients were actually hospitalized rather than being put out on the streets to fend for themselves as homeless bums. [**Note: I've decided that from this week on, I'm banning politically correct language from this blog.] This video of Madame Nanzi shows her to be practically incoherent. She's also looking her 70-years-old age and is in serious need of a complete botox overhaul--well, it will take a hell of a lot more than just botox, but I digress. The poor dear hasn't had enough personal time lately. She gets plastic surgery like other women get manicures.

Pelosi was asked if she thinks it's fair that people are sent to jail for not buying health insurance.

Pelosi: "The point is we want to make sure that everyone has access to health care. For a long time now, people who haven't had health care or provided it have placed the burden on others." Huh? What the hell does that sentence mean?

"Everybody is paying the price for uncompensated care, I don't need to tell you that, in a hospital. And so what this is, is to say that we all have to do our part, and that is the point of the bill."

Questioner: "Well, Madame Speaker, I'm just trying to understand. If you don't buy health insurance, you go to jail? You didn't answer my question."

Nanzi Pelosi: "Well, there is, uh, there is, uh, uh, uh, I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. It gives people an opportunity to have health care, uh, access to quality health care, if they can't afford it, it provides subsidies for them to do so. But do you think it's fair if somebody says, 'I'm just not going to have any, if I get sick, then I'll just go to the emergency room and send the bill to you.' And that's my view on the subject."

BRILLIANT discussion and analysis! Of course, if she had any idea of how "the folks live" (but of course she doesn't because she's a multi-millionaire many times over and her gold cadillac health care policy [which she'll have for life, by the way, may it be short] is paid for by you and me who pay taxes), then she would know that if you have no insurance and get hit by a hit-and-run driver who gets away and you end up in ICU with multiple broken bones and then undergo six weeks of rehabilitation, then the hospital will send the bill to your unlucky ass, not to Nanzi's fantasy-person "you," whoever that might be. And if it takes you ten years to pay off that bill, then so be it. That's how it works, but our Madame Defarge wouldn't know that.

And by the way, if people who don't buy health insurance will be sent to jail, since our jails are already full, just who are they going to let out of jail to allow "insurance non-compliance criminals" to have a place in jail? How about pedofiles? How about rapists? How about people who use guns to rob liquor stores? Just who are you going to let out of jail, Nanzi Pelosi, in order to find prison beds for these dangerous insurance criminals?

This is fucking insanity, straight up.

**This is a No Politically Correct Language Blog, as of this week. "Crazy" is an excellent word, but the PC crowd tells us that this word cannot be used: "crazy" is banned as offensive, replace with person with an emotional disability or a mental impairment. I'll just go with crazy. It's such a nice, clean, Anglo-Saxon word. Well, no, it's probably not Anglo-Saxon. I don't know what it is because my subscription to the online Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has lapsed. However, it has the same qualities that I like about Anglo-Saxon words--short, sweet, to the point. If it's a one-syllable word that punches you in the face with its clear meaning instead of going all weasel-wordy on you, then it's probably Anglo-Saxon in origin. Death. Grim. True. Lust. Bitch. Bold. Grave. Work. All good, useful, no-nonsense words. The best curse words are Anglo-Saxon because you can spit them out of your mouth. You know the ones. It's a beautiful language.

Postings from the commenters at HotAir:

Let's build a prison next door to her winery in Nappa Valley.

Come try and have me arrested, Nanner McBotox.

It’s just like debtors prison. Can’t pay your debt? We’ll lock you up until you (or someone you know) does. Last time I checked, this isn’t Dickensian England.

President Obama doesn’t want people going to jail for smoking dope, but it’s just fine if people go to jail for not purchasing insurance…

“So, what are you in for?”
“Murder. How about you?”
“Not paying for Healthcare.”

Tax cheats go to congress or serve in the Obama administration.
Public Health Insurance “cheats” go to jail.

If there’s ever a nasty revolution in this country, Madame Pelosi will be the first to face the music. She — not the manchild Obot — is running the country into the ground.

Did they include billions to build new prisons? Sounds to me like a lot of us have drawn a line in the sand on this one. Seriously, if hundreds of thousands or millions of people refuse to participate and refuse to pay the fine, what do the Feds do?

The left always tells us prisons are overcrowded. Well, they’re going to need room for tens of millions of people now. This should really be a winning campaign strategery in 2010. Vote for us or go to jail!
The good news is that when I am in jailm not only will I will get “free” health care, I will get “free” food, housing, and health club membership.
That picture of her makes me want to punch her right in the mouth.
They can take me to jail after they take my gun… from my cold dead hands.
We go to jail. And then we can watch the fun of watching their new “pure” society collapse on top of itself because all of the wealth-producers on whom their tax revenues depended are now in prison and are no longer making money.
Another campaign ad writes itself.
When you don’t pay for this health insurance and you go to jail, who then who pays for your health insurance, or do you not get any in jail? And what of a family? Does the father go to jail? How about the mother? What about the kids, after all, they didn’t have health insurance either because Dad and Mom didn’t provide it for them. And when Dad’s in jail (or Mom’s in jail or both), what happens to the kids? And what happens if you lose your job and can’t AFFORD to buy health insurance or it become health insurance or food kind of option…
Dick Morris is raising money to oust Nancy from her office. I’ve already sent him my money.
Can I take free college courses while I’m serving my time?
I will never take coverage off my family, but if this passes, I will drop my coverage instantly and DARE them to come get me.
Two words: Civil Disobedience. I’d rather go to jail than to consent to this abomination.
If the First Amendment continues to fail to get these fool’s attention, we may have to resort to the Second Amendment. Not something I want to see, but I think it might be coming.

Debtor prison! Banned in this country before slavery.
Is this prison sentence included in costs of the government plan?
Ms. Pelosi, what would be very fair is watching while you are placed in stocks and patriotic citizens are charged $2.00 ea. to throw rotten vegetables at you and $5.00 ea to throw rocks. That would be fair and just.
One wonders if the woman is deranged.
The second civil war starts with this bill being signed by King Barry Hussein. Pelosi is Queen.

Pelosi is willing to put US citizens in prison for not buying health insurance, but she is unwilling to pressure the Executive Branch into deporting illegal aliens who violate our country’s immigration laws and steal others’ identities to work.

“Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”
– Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

President Obama Still Voting "Present"--Who Is Surprised?

Caption: Smartest Guy in the Room

This is being reported by the AP tonight: President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

What does this mean? Who knows, except that no annoucement of a decision about additional troops to be deployed to Afghanistan has been made. This is quite a Veterans Day message to the troops.

This quote comes from Ace of Spades HQ: Whatever decision you end up making, you have shown a complete lack of leadership ability. You have made the job of our military more difficult everywhere as our enemies have seen you are not the strong horse. This entire process reeks of politics and the hands of your slimy Chicago fixers Emanuel and Axelrod. Why do I think you are looking for someone to hand you a plan that lets you start retreating before your 2012 elections and an appointment with your left wing? Well the rest of us get to vote as well sir, and we are watching your every back sliding step. America doesn't go to war based on an exit strategy, we go to win. Think about that. Also think about just how wrong you were about Iraq, over and over and over. Go in to win or bring them home now.

Update: This is John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador under George Bush and frequent Obama critic. He calls Obama's lack of decision about the troops "a slow-motion train wreck, watching his decision-making process." Bolton's take on the Obama's delay is that it's having a "debilitating" effect on troop morale and also on America's reputation around the world. Obama: his indecisiveness and weakness indicates that he has a problem making hard decisions.

Update #2. I never watch MSNBC--who does? But someone suggested I take a look at the Morning Joe show this morning, where they are "tearing apart" Obama.

Who is the depressed-looking blonde woman? I don't know her name, but she's hilarious--the perfect Obama sycophant mouthpiece. Saturday Night Live must wish they could parody her instead of doing what was a very lame parody the other night of Greta Van Susteren from Fox News. Oh, I've now been told this person is Mika Brzezinski, daughter of former National Security Advisor for Jimmah Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski. You can't make this stuff up.

Mika: "[Obama] is pushing his national security team for more specifics on how, when, and under what circumstances the U.S. will be able to turn over control to the Afghan government and military. I think that is a very key and difficult question. That's why it's taking time," she whined.

Joe: "I think at this point he's jumping the shark. . . . He's got to make up his damn mind, one way or the other. . . . The past is always prologue. Here's a guy who voted 'present' a hundred times when he was in the Illinois State Senate. This is a guy who never seemed to take control of those early Hillary debates. . . . and it worked out very well for him when he was campaigning for president, but campaigning for president and being President are two completely different things."

The Won getting beaten up on MSNBC? Ouch.

Update #3. Obama now seems to be losing his sycophantic coverage by the Los Angeles Times--who would have imagined that six months ago? In a Sunday op-ed piece by Doyle McManus, "Obama Must Rethink Rethinking Afghanistan," we read this: Eliot Cohen, a military historian who worked in the George W. Bush administration (and who supports sending more troops), described the dilemma this way: "If he goes ahead with this decision, he's basically going to be a war president." That means devoting more budget money -- and even more important, more of his own time and political capital -- to waging the war. It could also mean paring back his domestic agenda, already slowed by economic and political adversity. It's no wonder he's hesitating.

But in the end, he still has to make a choice. When Obama launched this review of his strategy in Afghanistan, it was a good thing. But the longer it goes on, the more costly it becomes.

There's no way that Barack Obama is going to be a war president. So if what Eliot Cohen says is true, then I think we can expect that Obama has made his decision--he's just dithering, trying to figure out how to sell it in a way that doesn't destroy his own presidency. History is not going to be kind to this guy, nor should it be. But we have to survive him first before "history" will get a shot at him.