When do liberals ever pay attention to – or care – what the people they are charged to represent think? When do leftists ever concern themselves with the will of their constituencies?
The next time will be the first time.
Leftists know best – and they’ll tell you so.
When the electorate votes against the redefinition of marriage, for instance – which they have done each and every time it has been brought before the people – liberals immediately cry foul. Americans are stuck in the dark ages, they say. Angry God-types are poisoning the American bouillabaisse, they scream. Americans are nothing but bigoted, backwater, fag-hating pickup truck pilots, they screech. Protests, appeals, and rainbow flag waving inevitably pepper the map.
But it isn’t enough.
So, what do libs do?
They use leftist judges to magically find loopholes in the law so that they can bypass the brain-dead, hate-mongering electorate. It’s the only way to enact destructive leftist policies, and they know it.
Take the entire health care reform debacle as another example. Poll after poll shows that the American people categorically do not support ObamaCare. Most Americans abhor the idea of government meddling in things it has no right being involved in – especially something as important and personal as their health care. Yet, the President tells us he knows what’s best for all of us – and demands that we understand that. He believes this is his charge. This is his historic moment (as opposed to America’s). ObamaCare is such a good plan – so necessary for the American people – he’s asking Democrats to have “courage” to pass it.
Again, who cares what Americans want? Who cares that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are satisfied with their health care? Why relegate oneself to trying to implement some targeted improvements to what is already the best health delivery system in the world when one can transform the whole damn thing?
A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.
The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.
On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.
Of course, none of this is surprising. None of it.
Apologizing on foreign soil and bowing to foreign heads of state can only go so far.
But will any of this matter to the President – our Commander In Chief? Of course not. It doesn’t matter what we the people think. It only matters what the rest of the world thinks.
This leftist polling company seems to concur.
Allow me the chance to educate them on two small points.
First, global acclaim is incalculably meaningless in rating an American President’s performance. His “citizen-of-the-world” status is irrelevant to national security. My rule of thumb has not changed: Whatever world opinion is on almost any given subject of relevance, go with the opposite.
Second, ever since the terrorist Yasser Arafat snagged the prize – and Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the world’s top “peace promoters” because of their work on the global warming hoax – the Nobel Peace Prize has about as much prestige as a colon polyp.
Democratic Corps, incidentally, was founded by Democratic talking head – and former Clinton adviser – James Carville along with Dem pollster, Stanley Greenberg.
The Third Way “calls itself ‘the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.’
Monkeys are getting high for science in North Carolina.
An analyst at the Civitas Institute seized on that image when selecting a cocaine addiction study at Wake Forest University Medical School as No. 1 on a list of the “10 worst federal stimulus projects in North Carolina.” Civitas’ Brian Balfour takes swipes at projects, writing that they “seem completely unrelated to avoiding an economic ‘catastrophe,’ but rather an ad hoc satisfaction of countless dubious wish lists.”
So, what is the $71,623 federal stimulus grant paying for?
Well, a job, said Mark Wright, a spokesman for the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
“It’s actually the continuation of a job that might not still be there if it hadn’t been for the stimulus funding. And it’s a good job,” Wright said. “It’s also very worthwhile research.”
The study is examining the effects of cocaine on a particular neurotransmitter among monkeys who have had a long-term addiction to cocaine.
Maybe I’m not focusing enough, but stoned primates generally don’t make me think, “Man, that stimulus money is working!”
I know I’m not a liberal, but let me try to wrap my brain around this somehow.
According to the brochure, the Obama “stimulus money” was meant to give a jolt to the ailing economy by creating or saving jobs. Thus, one would have to assume – considering billions and billions of jobs have already been “saved” by the stimulus bill – that this Wake Forest stimulus story is yet another example of an economy-saving Obamacratic triumph.
In short, because of this study – and others like it – the unemployment rate stayed just below 10%.
Thus, it would be correct to conclude that if not for this stimulus money, the snowblowing monkey researchers would have all been fired. If not for this stack of ObamaCash, all of these university folks have all been out of work.
After all, wasn’t Obama’s stimulus money meant to “create” or “save” jobs?
Certainly none were created here. It isn’t unreasonable to assume, then, that the jobs of these otherwise soon-to-be-unemployed university researchers were “saved” because of the continuance of “monkeys on coke” studies.
Ahh, makes sense now.
“How does this study help revive the economy?” Balfour asked.
Well, again, jobs, said Nancy Avis, a professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Health policy at the medical school. The funding, more than $147,000 over two years, will contribute to the salaries of six people.
Really?
So, are all of these six jobs considered “saved?” Without taxpayer dollars to help “revive the economy,” would these six “hanging-by-a-thread” researchers all been cast out to the unemployment lines? And if they were, wouldn’t they just be collecting government-provided funds in the form of unemployment anyway?
It’s all about making the kind of fundamental change that cannot – and will not – be overturned. It’s all about the willingness to take the political hit now, suffer significant losses, and figure out how to come back sometime down the road.
If victory can be secured now, many will be more than willing to get knocked down and tend to what will be undoubtedly be an ugly wound, knowing full well that time is a great healer.
The fact is, once the changes (i.e., fundamental transformations) are enacted – once seventeen percent of the American economy falls under the heel of the federal government – the chance of seeing things reversed is nil.
And that’s the point.
They’re not stupid.
They know that entitlement programs don’t go away. They never ever disappear.
They know that once ObamaCare becomes law, there’s no way in hell it will be wiped off the books. Once Bammy signs it, the fight in the opposition will effectively die on Capitol Hill. All that will follow will be a whole lot of blah, blah, blah about how it is now the law of land and must be implemented as effectively as possible, along with a boatload of doubletalk about controlling the rate of growth, and so on and so forth.
It sounds so antithetical to the game of politics. Why would one side deliberately pursue legislation that is tremendously unpopular and be willing to fall face first on a sword that will all but guarantee major losses for their party?
Because of the big picture.
If history is any sort of guide, it simply isn’t possible for ObamaCare to be a temporary measure. Once the rot of liberalism sets in, it is a victory for the left that forever changes the playing field. Indeed, the right may win future elections because of Obama’s gross miscalculation, but the default position will be further left. passing ObamaCare is a permanent move toward Camp Socialism.
That’s why the President will take his tired act on the road once again to try and sell something to the American people that they do not want – despite the fact that he said there is nothing more to say about the health care debate.
With the fate of his signature legislative initiative far from certain, President Barack Obama is taking his last-ditch push for health care reform on the road.
In a speech Monday in Philadelphia, Obama will try to persuade the public to back his plan to remake the nation’s health care system, while also urging uneasy lawmakers to cast a “final vote” for a massive reform bill in an election year.
Obama’s pitch in Philadelphia, along with a stop in St. Louis Wednesday, comes as the president begins an all-out effort to pass his health care proposals. Though his plan has received only modest public support, Obama has implored lawmakers to show political courage and not let a historic opportunity slip away.
I must ask the same question I asked last week: If the bill is such a good idea, and if it will do much to solve America’s health care problems, and if the American people will unquestionably benefit from the bill’s passage, and if it will keep health care so affordable for everyone without compromising quality, why do the Democrats need “courage” to pass it?
I don’t give a damn how “historic” this bill is supposed to be.
President Obama’s election was “historic,” wasn’t it?
Yesterday, at the University of Washington, students representing the Socialist Workers Party held a protest against budget cuts at the school.
Like their college campus ancestors, they took to the greens and waved banners.
Among the litany of catchy slogans employed yesterday was this little gem: “Who’s Schools? Our Schools.”
Yes, students were actually carrying signs that read, “ Who’s Schools? Our Schools.”
The irony is both delicious and incalculable.
Sadly, the young Marxists may be right. Perhaps more money needs to be funneled into the English department. Or maybe these young people just need to sit in on English class a little more often.
Either way, here’s a quick lesson from your old Uncle Andy to all of you Socialist Workers Party kids out there: Written with an apostrophe “s,” the sign would actually be saying “Who is Schools? Our Schools.”
Of course, that doesn’t make alot of sense, depending on how much ecstasy you’ve taken.
The correct spelling of the word is “whose, ” which is the possessive of “who.” In this context, you would use the word “whose” to ask the question: “The school belonging to whom?”
Note that the little darlings attempted to correct their mistakes by hand scribbling an “e” at the end.
Fortunately, as you can see, no apostrophes were harmed in the rewrites.
_________________________________
This photo comes from Gateway Pundit, via Weasel Zipper. It’s one of those “gifts” that make blogging a whole lot of fun.
As I’ve written here on several occasions, the best thing to come out of the Messianic Age is the exposing of liberalism for what it really is – the ideology of “government knows best.” Talk show host Dennis Prager coined a phrase that sums it up perfectly: “The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.”
The key here is that while America continues to reject liberalism, and while the mood and temperament of this nation continue to trend toward limited government, rugged individualism, personal accountability and liberty (i.e., conservatism), we’re not where we need to be yet. In fact, the only thing clear at this time is that America is resoundingly kicking liberalism (the Democrat Party) to the curb. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are racing over to embrace the Republican Party.
Not yet.
President Barack Obama has officially declared that there is nothing more to be said about the health care issue. The time for debate is over, according to his royal messiahness. He has spoken.
Of course, he hasn’t even read the 2000 page bill, evidenced by his preposterous commentary on Wednesday, surrounded by white-coated human props. And despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who don’t want this thing passed, he’s determined to move forward, because the only damn thing that matters to him is his legacy – the fact that he can say he’s done what no other president has done.
Pollster Frank Luntz – the Maharishi of focus groups – appeared on Fox News’ Hannity last evening, commenting on what American can expect if Bammy finds a way to ram this health care down our throats:
I will tell you two things will happen: Number One – is that everyone who isopposed to this will absolutely, positively come out and vote because they will feel like it is not only their right but their responsibility to send a message.
And two, you will see democrats defeated in places that haven’t elected a Republican since 1994. This will have such huge political consequences.
That’s what I don’t understand.
I see why Barack Obama might push it for ideological reasons, but why would Congress go along when their own jobs are in jeopardy, and their responsibility is to represent their own constituents?
Rolling back entitlements – and make no mistake, entitlements are precisely what ObamaCare is all about – is an extremelydifficult, if not impossible, nut to crack. (See Medicare and Medicaid). What federal government entitlement program has ever been scaled back? When has anything that has been enacted to increase government intervention in our lives been trimmed?
While I wholeheartedly concur that there is nothing that would be better for the United States of America than to see the Democrats nuked from their congressional majorities, the solution doesn’t end with just a numbers shift.
Of course, just voting against Democrats and what they’re doing both in terms of policy and how they’re governing doesn’t mean Republicans have won back the hearts and minds of the people. If Republicans think they’re going to be swept back into office and go about business as usually they’ll be swept back out just as quickly.
He’s right.
No one wants to see cancer replaced by typhoid so that the black plague can move in after that.
By the way, if the President is correct in saying that there is nothing more to be said about the health care debate, why did Robert Gibbs – the greatest Press Secretary the world has ever known – say that Americans want the debate to continue?
And the Alaskan Glaciers aren’t melting quite as much as originally thought either – which means sea levels aren’t rising as quickly as advertised.
Go figure.
So, instead of melting Alaskan ice contributing .0067 inches more water a year to world sea levels – which is a highly questionable calculation anyway – it turns out it is only contributing .0047 inches a year. That means it would take two centuries for world sea levels to rise nearly – but not quite – one whole inch.
Phew!
Still, don’t be surprised if cities like New York, Miama and Los Angeles – coastal metroplexes – become barren wastelands over the next several milenia.
Perhaps people ought to think about packing up shop now, while traffic is still good, and head for higher ground.
The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says not so fast.
Previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40-plus years, according to Erik Schiefer, a Northern Arizona University geographer who coauthored a paper in the February issue of Nature Geoscience that recalculates glacier melt in Alaska.
The research team, led by Étienne Berthier of the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography at the Université de Toulouse in France, says that glacier melt in Alaska between 1962 and 2006 contributed about one-third less to sea-level rise than previously estimated.
Incidentally, the forecast for Fairbanks, Alaska calls for temperaures to be below freezing for the next several days – including a high temperature of 9 degrees on Saturday.
I hate when Alaskan ice melts in subfreezing temperatures.
Maybe the White House was thinking, “It looks so obvious, so blatant, they won’t think anyone could be that stupid. They’ll decide it’s just a coincidence.”
Maybe the White House thinks we are that stupid.
On the other hand, maybe there really is nothing to it.
Maybe it really is just a coincidence.
Either way, it’s a story that will get very little – if any – coverage by the mainstream media. All of the young “Woodward” and “Bernstein” wanna-bes out there in journalistland will be taking a convenient powder.
It’s a shame, because it’s actually an interesting story – certainly one worthy of visiting at least once. In the days when reporters actually did investigating, it might have grown legs.
What am I talking about?
Last night, the President played host to ten House Dems who voted against ObamaCare last year. Clearly, Obama was hoping to convince some of them – if not all – to flip their ticks over to the “yes” column for the good of the country.
One of those in Obama’s sights was Congressman Jim Matheson of Utah.
What makes this otherwise run-of-the-mill, uninteresting political play a bona fide story is the fact that the White House issued a press release yesterday saying that President Obama nominated Scott M. Matheson, Jr. – Congressman Matherson’s eldest brother – to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit … on the same day.
Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother’s vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson’s record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he’s “undecided” on ramming the bill through Congress. “The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus,” Matheson’s press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. “It’s too early to know if that will occur.” Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: “I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday.”
The real question … Is this necessary now?
Inexplicably, this one seems to have slipped under the radar of the “drive-by media.”
Shocking.
Could this develop into an actual scandal of some kind?
Not likely.
It would first have to warrant a blurb somewhere.
However, one could almost bet a vital body appendage that it would have graced front pages everywhere had these group of players been Republicans.
The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.
I’m not a conspiracist.
Obviously, Court of Appeals nominations are not made on the drop of a dime. I suppose there is some chance that the choice of Scott Matheson, Jr. to the Tenth Circuit is all just a fat and happy coincidence.
But there’s no way – even if the process began before Congressman Matheson’s thumbs down vote in November – that yesterday’s announcement of the elder Matheson’s nomination just happened to fall on the same day ten Democrat “NO” votes visited the White House (including the younger Matheson) to be persuaded by Barack Obama to change sides.
No way in hell.
Somehow, I see a puffy-cheeked Marlon Brando putting his arm around Congressman Matheson in the Oval Office saying, “Congratulations on your brother’s nomination. I hope it all works out for him.”
A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday that, if passed, would put the face of America’s 40th President – Ronald Wilson Reagan – on the $50 bill. Congressman Patrick McHenry, Republican from North Carolina, introduced legislation that would replace the likeness of Ulysses S. Grant – celebrated Civil War general and 18th President of the United States - with that of Reagan’s.
“Every generation needs its own heroes,” McHenry said in a written statement. “One decade into the 21st century, it’s time to honor the last great president of the 20th and give President Reagan a place beside Presidents Roosevelt and Kennedy.”
FDR’s likeness in on the dime and Kennedy’s is on the half-dollar.
McHenry pointed to a polls of presidential scholars that show Reagan consistently outranks President Grant, including a Wall Street Journal survey in 2005 that ranked Reagan sixth and Grant 29th.
But one Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee said he’s not ready to grant that honor to “someone whose policies are still controversial.”
“Our currency ought to be something that unites us,” Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told the Los Angeles Times.
I could be wrong on this, but I’m guessing that Ulysses S. Grant is similarly regarded in some sectors of the South as General William Techumseh Sherman is, although probably with less disdain. To be sure, Grant’s likeness wasn’t a common sight in too many American homes south of the Mason-Dixon line after the war.
And how exactly did John F. Kennedy unify America? By his death? Nearly half of America did not vote for the man in 1960. Apart from his murder, what did he accomplish that warranted his face on a coin? The escalation of America’s involvement in Vietnam?
Indeed, Franklin Roosevelt helped lead America to victory in World War II, but to suggest that his nearly four terms of unprecedented government expansion – along with his creation of the modern entitlement state – wasn’t (and still isn’t) controversial is to deny that water is wet. Outside of World War II, there isn’t much that “unifies” the American public today about the hyper-progressive, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And yet, there he is on the dime.
Hell, Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend the writ of habeas corpus during the war to this day is controversial.
Why didn’t Congressman Sherman just say, “Reagan was too conservative to be on my money.”
It’s only a bit of research by some Harvard “experts.”
But this just isn’t going to fly.
Although no one in the enviro-fascist camp really seems to be trying to tackle the problem of reducing the most abundant greenhouse gas of all – water vapor – the Obama administration stands steadfastly behind its goal to reduce other doomsday greenhouse gases that threaten the planet’s existence, like carbon dioxide.
You’ll recall that carbon dioxide is the stuff we – and all air breathing creatures – exhale.
(I thought it was worth restating).
And even though the hoax of manmade global warming continues to unravel on a daily basis, it isn’t keeping the true believers – like the ever-industrious President of the United States – from demanding that greenhouse emissions be cut before it’s too late.
But Obama’s standards are steep. His goals are ambitious.
And if America is to save itself – and the world – from greenhouse death, it’s going to require that the price of gasoline go up, according to some researchers.
Way up.
How does $7.00 a gallon sound?
Sindya N. Bhando of the New York Times’ Dot Earth feature writes:
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
I’m curious … which governmental agency will be so lucky to benefit from the income generated by these tax increases?
Perhaps the new found revenue could be used to subsidize the poor, who will be hit hardest by such a price increase.
And let’s not forget those people unfortunate enough not to have access to a urine-soaked subway system, a sparsely travelled light rail system or a public bus.
A government-imposed $7.00 a gallon price for gasoline might hurt a little.
It’s interesting to note that while stories about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continue to somehow find their way onto the pages of the New York Times, the continued implosion of the global warming charade – including the story of ClimateGate itself – is all but ignored by the Grey-haired Lady.
$7.00 a gallon gas?
Is the government-led dismantling of the transportation industry as we know it the goal here?
I know that the study of climate is a tricky science. I am also aware that, often times, things aren’t quite as they seem.
We now know, for instance, that global warming triggers global cooling that induces global moderation that leads to all-encompassing global climate change.
And even though nothing may actually be changing, things change all the time, even when they don’t. And even though it may not necessarily be a global thing, it is taking place all over the world, even if it’s not.
This isn’t your father’s weather.
Last week, for example, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that the last ten years have been the hottest decade since temperature records have been kept, although Professor Phil Jones – the former chief of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit who was forced to step down due to the ClimateGate scandal - finally admitted there has been no global warming in 15 years.
Nuance, baby.
Last week, Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said that the three month span from November 2009-January 2010 has been “the hottest November-January the world has seen.”
Yet, in Great Britain, it has been the coldest winter in three decades.
After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction.
Provisional figures from the forecaster show the UK winter – which in forecasting terms lasts from the start of December until the end of February – has been the harshest, in temperature terms, since 1978-79.
…
According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature – calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 – of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C.
So much nuance.
I’m out of my league.
Speaking of Professor Phil Jones … he testified on Monday before the British Parliament’s committee on Science and Technology in an attempt to defend himself after the ClimateGate scandal threw the entire manmade global warming farce into a tailspin. Indeed, he admitted to withholding data about global temperatures, but said that it wasn’t standard practice to share that kind of information with other scientists, nor was it common to release computer models so that the “science” could be checked.
Jones said, “I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way.”
Wow.
That’s all I can say.
Is he serious?
True, I’m no scientist, but the layman in me can’t help but wonder … what exactly is the “peer review” process if it isn’t allowing fellow scientists to review and challenge research? What is it that peers are supposed to be reviewing if not the methods and data used to arrive at given conclusions? Isn’t that, quite literally, what science is supposed to be all about? Isn’t that what the scientific method is?
Before conclusions can become accepted in the scientific community – let alone “settled science” – other scientists must be allowed to conduct their own research using the data and methods employed by those who have drawn the original conclusions.
Three years ago, San Diego school teacher, Brad Johnson, was informed that two banners he had displayed on his classroom wall – one that hung for twenty-five years and another for seventeen years – had to come down.
Apparently, they were suddenly offending students.
For all those years, they simply hung there, as they always had , without incident, without complaint. There wasn’t even a hint that their American patriotic references to God were an affront to anyone.
Then, school administrators told him that he was violating the principles of Separation of Church and State. They told Mr. Johnson that his banners were “an impermissible attempt to make a Judeo-Christian statement to his students.”
They had to come down, they demanded.
His First Amendment rights had limitations, they argued.
The school’s principal had final say on what went up on the classroom walls, they said.
One banner, with its four phrases – In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, God Bless America and God Shed His Grace On Thee – had no business in a classroom. The other, quoting directly from the Declaration of Independence, might insult Muslims, Johnson was told.
Johnson decided he would sue.
A year later, in September, 2008, Judge Roger T. Benitez, said Johnson had the right to do so.
He did.
From Warner Todd Huston’s Pluribus Form blog, September, 2008:
In a blistering 23-page decision, U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez rejected the district’s motion as legally faulty and blasted its “brash” attempt to take down the banners. The jurist noted that the district allowed other teachers to put up posters with Buddhist and Islamic messages, posters of rock bands including Nirvana and the Clash, and Tibetan prayer rugs… Johnson’s banners, Benitez wrote, were patriotic expressions deeply rooted in American history.
Last Friday – seventeen months after Judge Benitez ruled that Johnson had the right to sue – he ruled that the Poway Unified School District of San Diego, CA, violated Johnson’s constitutional rights.
That school officials banned Johnson’s patriotic displays while permitting other teachers to display personal posters and banners promoting partisan political issues such as gay rights and environmental causes, including global warming, played a crucial role in the Judge’s decision.
These displays included: a 35 to 40 foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with images of Buddha; a poster with the lyrics from John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” which starts off, Imagine there’s no Heaven; a poster with Hindu leader Mahatma Gandhi’s “7 Social Sins;” a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X, and a poster of Buddhist leader Dali Lama.
Judge Benitez’s 32-page opinion was strongly worded and critical of the Poway school districts aversion to mentioning God: “[The school district officials] apparently fear their students are incapable of dealing with diverse viewpoints that include God’s place in American history and culture. . . . That God places prominently in our Nation’s history does not create an Establishment Clause violation requiring curettage and disinfectant for Johnson’s public high school classroom walls. It is a matter of historical fact that our institutions and government actors have in past and present times given place to a supreme God.”
If an educator is permitted to post an ex-Beatle’s vision of a Godless world, then certainly one should be permitted to allow historical slogans dating back two centuries that acknowledge this nation’s religious heritage. If Tibetan prayer flags are allowed to be put on display, then a quote referencing God taken from this nation’s founding document seems perfectly reasonable.
The “Free Exercise Thereof” portion of the First Amendment isn’t an anti-Christianity clause.
The meanings of words change over time. New words find their way into the American lexicon, while others fade away into the recesses of classic literature and old celluloid. Some words that started out as slang can become “normalized” and stick around for a long time. Others have a short shelf life.
For instance, the word “cool” seems to transcend time – “that’s cool” – while others, such as “groovy” and “swell,” are prisoners of their time.
Then there are instances when a word becomes part of the language because of an obvious void. Sometimes specificity is needed.
Let’s look at the word “lie” for a moment.
Knowingly telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive is a lie. Most everyone knows that.
Most also know that not all lies are equal.
For instance, there are necessary, peace-keeping kind of lies:
-Concerned Wife:Honey, does this shirt make me look fat?
-Harrowed Husband:No, dear.Not at all.
Then there are the more egregious, “Do you really think we’re that dumb” type of lies:
-Lying President: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Then there’s the Vice President Joe Biden kind of lie – a special kind of deceit in a category all its own, worthy of its own word. You might call it the “Sky isn’t blue, although it’s obviously blue if you just look at it” lie.
Soon, it will be known as pulling a “biden.”
When one asserts a falsehood that is obviously untrue – provably untrue – and he or she knows it’s not true, but says it is anyway, and does so because there is no other way to make a point that otherwise cannot be made by sane human beings without ingesting fairy dust, and those who are witness to the lie stand there dumbfounded, gaping, wondering why the padded trucks have not yet arrived, and no one is really taking him or her seriously anyway – kind of like that crazy Uncle who only visits at Thanksgiving and wants to talk to you about his mucus buildup - one is said to be pulling a “biden.”
Joe Biden, indeed, pulled a classic “biden” in Orlando, Florida yesterday, talking about what he perceived as the grand successes of President Barack Obama’s year-old Recovery Act – a.k.a, the Stimulus Bill, a.k.a. steaming crap – saying, “There’s no economist now that says the Recovery Act hasn’t created or saved at least two million jobs.”
Not one, says the Vice President.
Anywhere.
Every economist on the face of planet earth says that the Obama Spendulous Bill has created or saved two million jobs.
Every economist.
And the math is simple, according to Joe:
“When you lose eight million jobs in this Great Recession, and you keep it from being ten, that’s no solace to the eight million who don’t have a job, man.”
In other words, if not for Obama, ten million jobs would have been lost, instead of eight … hence, two million saved or created.
Simple.
This is another way of pulling a “biden” – saying something that cannot be disproven because the premise on which the assertion is made is completely made up, but otherwise sounds pretty cool to a crowd full of libs. (Remember, the word “cool” transcends time).
Using the Biden method – or being “bidonian” – I can say, for instance, I “saved” my wife’s job because I didn’t send in a letter to her supervisor threatening his life and signing her name to it. Because of my inaction, she’s still employed. In essence, I saved her job by doing nothing – which is precisely what the Stimulus Bill did … nothing.
It’s all very bidenesque.
But I can’t help but wonder … since the criteria for what constitutes a “saved” or “created” job is so jumbled, ill-defined and convoluted, why didn’t the Veep claim that three million jobs were saved? Or five million? What’s the difference anymore?
I ask the same kind of question when it comes to the minimum wage. Why not make it $15 an hour? Or $25? Or $100?
As far as my original point is concerned, please note that the word “biden” can be used as a noun: He’s pulling a biden. Did you catch the biden that came out of his mouth yesterday?
It can be used as a verb: She’s gonna biden her Dad about the scratch on the car.
It’ll work as an adjective: That speech was very biden.
It’ll even fly as an adverb: The governor is bidenly effective.
It’s also a joke – as in, “Joe Biden is ourVice President.”
Incidentally, in the spirit of openness and hospitality, I offer these to Vice President Joe Biden: Dan Mitchell, J.D. Foster and Lawrence Katz, among many many others.
… three very well-known economists who don’t subscribe to the two million jobs fairy tale.
It’s unclear whether or not it will take a couple of hundred screeching yodelers yelling it from the mountaintops to make her see, or whether having someone beat her with a ten foot Gallup poll will finally do the trick.
Neon signs, subliminal messages and psychotropic drugs are also possibilities.
The question remains: What exactly is it going to take for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to realize that the American people do not want this health care bill passed?
What else has to happen – aside from plummeting popularity, collapsing poll numbers, the ouster of Democrats from office in key states, the tea party movement, and the fact that ObamaCare could not be passed when the Dems had super majorities in both Houses – for this women to get the hint?
Unfortunately, even if she could answer these questions, it is uncertain whether or not the public at large would be able to understand her.
No matter what she says – no matter what comes out of her mouth – she makes less sense than subtitles for an audience of blind people.
Indeed, there is an ever-growing need among Dems to somehow make ObamaCare a bipartisan animal. That way, when it crashes and burns as the utter and complete failure it will be – and the economy is all but destroyed, and more and more people are dependant on government – Dems can point fingers at the other side and accuse them of being obstructionists for not letting the bill go far enough.
It’s the same mentality that affords us such clear-minded thinking as, “The reason more kids are failing school than ever before is that we don’t spend enough on education” and “The reason poverty still exists is we haven’t spent enough on welfare programs.”
Of course, I’m not convinced that Nancy Pelosi is quite that complex. I actually think hers is more of a “Shut Up And Be Happy With What You Got” approach.
She is now peddling the idea that the health care bill is already a bipartisan venture – that the GOP has already left its mark on ObamaCare and should now agree to let the bill move forward to its inevitable passage.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.
“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”
Yes, dear friends … from the party that brought you the toe-tapping, “I voted for the bill before I voted against it,” comes the latest donkey hit “Bipartisan without bipartisan votes.”
It’s got a great beat and you can definitely dance to it.
It should be noted, for the record, that the “public option” wasn’t “stripped from the bill” because of Republicans, as Pelosi contends.
That doesn’t even make sense.
The Dems have had an inescapable majority in Pelosi’s House of Crud throughout the thirteen months of the Messianic Age. What possible effect could the GOP have had on the bill or its contents?
Honestly … What part of the 2000-plus page health care bill is a Republican creation? Which sections are GOP babies? What exactly was the GOPs contribution to the bill during the ‘who-did-it-and-ran” health care “debates” late last year?
What utter nonsense.
This is all about Pelosi’s impotent leadership coupled with a very unpopular agenda.
To top it all off, Madame Speaker also said that Democrats need ‘courage” to pass health care.
If the bill is such a good idea, and if it will do much to solve America’s health care problems, and if the American people will unquestionably benefit from the bill’s passage, and if it will keep health care so affordable for everyone without compromising quality, why do the Democrats need “courage” to pass it?
I don’t doubt for a moment that billionaire George Soros is feeling a touch unsatisfied with the first thirteen months of the Messianic Age.
It hasn’t exactly been fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies.
For Soros – and other lefties – it’s been more like intestinal polyps and impacted molars.
For one, the banks were never nationalized. Soros desperately wanted it to happen.
Second, America never “unified” under the new boy Socialist king the way many had envisioned. Despite Bam’s wish to be the “great uniter,” it never materialized.
That’s because the “rest of us” – the thinking class – never bought into it.
And thank God for that.
The word “unity,” in a political context, is only a gimmick.
It is the most disingenuous word in politics.
What Soros really means is that more people didn’t fall in line with Obama’s liberal agenda. That’s really what “unity” means when a candidate says it, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from – getting everyone to think like he or she.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about “unity.” I’m a “clarity” guy.
Of course, America’s “disunity” is not really the fault of President Obama or his widely unpopular agenda, accoring to Soros. Yes, it take two to play pinochle, but it’s really the rest of us that are to blame.
Said Soros:
“He wanted to be the great uniter and he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring it together. But the other side has absolutely no incentive to do it. So it takes two to tango. So that approach has failed.”
He’s right.
I have more of an incentive to lick my fingers after manually cleaning out the bathtub drain than “unite” in the lobby of Club Marxist.
It is no secret that most of the country – a significant majority – does not buy into the Obamacratic vision of nanny-statism and intrusive government.
But, like Howard Dean, he’s making the barren-brained mistake of thinking that what has happened in places like New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts – namely the ass-kicking of failed big-government liberals – is a sign from the electorate that those in power are not being liberal enough.
But Obama “got the message” when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, as Ted Kennedy’s successor, Soros said.
“I hope that, actually, now, he’s [Obama's] taking the health care back to Congress and overcoming the filibuster — the 60 percent vote requirement,” Soros said. “I think that’s the right reaction. So he’s sort of taking a tough stance. And that may be the turning point. It depends on how he follows it up.”
It makes perfect sense.
The people of bluer-than-blue Massachusetts – liberalism’s uterus – were so behind the proposed government take over of 17% of the American economy that they elected someone who ran almost exclusively on being the “41st Republican,” namely Scott Brown.
Sure.
Maybe the electorate was angry – furious, even – that Obama hadn’t proposed more of the economy being sucked up by the government.
Maybe this entire trend of toppling Democrats is America’s way of saying that they are sick of the free market, and if liberals can’t get the job done, they’re willing to punish America with a little infusion of liberty from the right.
At least Obama saved America from a deep recession or depression.
Seven billion jobs saved or created, I think the count is up to, as of this morning.
… and even though the Maharishi of Manmade Global Warming and Climate Change, Professor Phil Jones, recently admitted that there has been no global warming taking place on earth over the past fifteen years – as well as conceding that there is no consensus on the matter in the scientific community - the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says the ten year period from 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.
The WMO, of course, is an agency of the United Nations – an organization whose worth is rivaled only by boar nipples and Joy Behar’s television program.
Keep in mind, another UN body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has already shown that their inscrutable methods of data collection - which include anecdotal tidbits from magazine articles, propaganda literature from environmental pressure groups, and manipulated temperature reading - are not exactly the most scientific.
Did you also know that last month was the hottest January “the world has ever seen.”
The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
At the height of the big freeze, the entire country was blanketed in snow. But Australian weather expert Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, said yesterday: “January, according to satellite data, was the hottest January we’ve ever seen.
“Last November was the hottest November we’ve ever seen. November-January as a whole is the hottest November-January the world has seen.” Veteran ¬climatologist Professor Nicholls was speaking at an online climate change briefing, added: “It’s not warming the same everywhere but it is really quite challenging to find placesthat haven’t warmed in the past 50 years.”
It may be hard to believe initially, but why should it? Why should any reasonable thinking human not believe that last month was the hottest January mankind has ever seen?
Considering that all we’ve seen from the enviro-fascists over the years – and even more so since last year’s ClimateGate scandal blew the roof off of the hoax – is manipulation, ommision and deception, why would anyone ever doubt it?
We’ve seen Godless religion. We’ve seen mounting hysteria. We’ve seen the onset of green totalitarianism.
What would lead anyone to think that January wasn’t a cauldron of human activity-driven destruction?
Was it all the snow?
The record-breaking cold temperatures?
The untold amounts of greenhouse gases dancing around the atmosphere from all the limos and planes in Copenhagen during the Climate Change Summit?
Seeing as human activity is supposed to be having such a profound effect on the climate, I can’t help but wonder if we might be deep in the heart of another Ice Age right now if not for our idling pickup trucks and incandescent light bulbs.
Some quick post-Health Care Summit thoughts … the morning after.
I truly wanted to avoid leveling any complaints about yesterday’s ObamaCare rap session, but after a good night’s sleep, and a clearer head, I am compelled to kvetch a bit.
First of all, why weren’t there more stories from Democrat constituents shared at yesterday’s summit? Why weren’t we regaled with more heartbreaking tales of insurance woe, like the one conveyed by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) about the woman who couldn’t afford dentures and was forced to use her dead sister’s false teeth?
Talk about captivating.
Like love bugs on the grill of my car on a Florida highway, that story has stuck with me.
I cannot be the only one wondering if she yanked them out herself or if she had someone retrieve them for her.
Why wasn’t that part of Slaughter’s story?
There really needed to be more yarns like that.
Couldn’t someone find any harrowing tales of in-grown hair mishaps to share? Wasn’t there at least one halitosis horror story to impart from the tens of billions of letters they must have received from desperate constituents? Wasn’t there even a single testimonial about the scourge of anal fissures anywhere to be found? Surely there has to be at least one stinging bum sob story in that stack.
Second, if there are going to be any more “props” brought in to any of these summits, at least make sure they’re battery powered.
Lastly, if this summit, complete with Obama death-stares and Joe Biden open-microphone mutterings, is not released on DVD and blu ray, I will be very angry.
The fact is, President Obama took a page from the Thugs and Fools Songbook yesterday and showed why he is not only in way over his head as the Big Cheese but childishly incompetent when the pressure is on – which, these days, is all the time. He tried to bully dissenters and came across as both angry and ill-informed. He tried to accuse Republicans of playing political games when they voiced legitimate concerns about ObamaCare by quoting actual passages from the 2000-page bill – which Obama didn’t read.
It was supposed to be Obama’s day, but it wasn’t.
Not even close.
It was a good day for America, however.
Thus, like global warming, another myth is duly shattered: That Republicans are the “Party of No” and couldn’t care less about health care. The notion that Republicans have no grasp of the nation’s health care situation or are without ideas on how to deal with it has been shown to be a lie that Dems can’t use as a talking point anymore.
Thanks to talk show host Mark Levin – the Great One – I was made aware of this little gem from Senator Lamar Alexander during yesterday’s Obamacrat health care summit.
Now some say we need to rein in the insurance companies. Maybe we do. But I think it’s important to know that if we took all the profits of the insurance companies, the health insurance companies entirely away – every single penny of it – we could pay for two days of the health insurance of Americans. That would leave 363 days with costs that are too high.
Recall late last year when it was revealed that American insurance companies ranked number 35 on the Fortune 500 list of most profitable industries – not exactly fat cat nirvana.
You may also remember that insurance companies last year ran profit margins of around 2% – well below the 6% they normally have.
Yes, I swore I was only going to pay peripheral attention to this Obama health care summit thing. For the past week I was pecking lightly at the “I Couldn’t Care Less” snack platter. The whole notion of Barack Obama holding court with those he treats worse – and sees as more of an enemy – than Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a joke of epic proportion. I saw the entire thing as a fraud, a no-win situation for Republicans.
Besides, the last thing on earth I was interested in was another one of these Obama “summits.” Using the word “Obama” and “summit” in the same sentence is like saying “Jimmy Carter” and “national security” in the same breath.
Yet, thus far, I have been surprised – although I shouldn’t be. I have been entertained – although I didn’t want to be. For our President, it has proven to be a carnival of unparalleled arrogance, worthy of a slot on the Gershwin Theater stage.
No one does it better.
Along with the fact that the smooth-talking, well-dressed Chicagoland socialist has looked wholly unprepared for the questions and commentary he was fielding this morning, it is obvious that he hasn’t even read the health care bills that are being discussed, unlike the Republicans who have come in primed and ready. Stellar performances by people like Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, who clearly has read the bill - and quite literally confronted the President on actual portions of the proposed legislation - has made the stumbling, bumbling Chief Executive look foolish.
Of course, Bammy didn’t need Cantor’s help for that.
If ever there was a human in need of a teleprompter, it is Barack Obama.
It’s quite comical.
At every turn, the President has managed to criticize the method by which Republicans are taking this bill to task.
As expected, everything the Republicans say is unhelpful to the process. Republican criticisms of the health care bill are political ploys to obstruct. Using or referring to the 2,000-plus page health care bills to make points is a distraction of “props.” So, while Republicans weathered messianic criticism for resorting to visual aids, Democrat Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa – and others – read emotional letters from constituents without ever being accused of “prop manipulation.”
As expected, Democrats rarely addressed the bill itself, instead playing the emotion card as often as possible.
You can do that when you think Americans are idots.
But the highlight of the day thus far – the thing everyone has been, and will be, talking about – is the Monument to Arrogance erected by the messiah himself when speaking to John McCain. It is this moment alone that has made this “summit” worthwhile.
Following remarks made by Senator John McCain, the President – with a pomposity and superiority that would have made Lady Gaga seem timid – responded, “Let me just make this point, John … because we’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
McCain retorted, “I’m reminded of that everyday.”
(What he should have said is that America is reminded of that everyday).
Is Barack Obama kidding? He lives in campaign mode. His entire political life is campaign mode. He is a revolving bumper sticker dispenser in well-tailored suits. He is Bromide-Man, able to leap over reality in a single bound.
It’s as obvious as the ears that dangle on his head that he hasn’t read the health care bill, and thus speaks about it in campaign buzz phrases. To accuse McCain – who ran his campaign like Air America ran their radio network – of being in campaign mode is beyond hilarious.
Incidentally, during this morning’s session, out of 164 total minutes of discussion time, Democrats had spoke for 108 of those minutes. Republicans spoke for 56.
Out of the 108 Democrat minutes, President Obama spoke for 58 of them.
I live in New York, so I am well acquainted with the bellicose sniveling of Congressman Anthony Weiner. If ever there was a quintessential poster child for a New York Democrat, Mr. Weiner is it. To Weiner, the self-sufficient among us are involuntarily obligated to carry the load for everyone else through incentive-raping taxes and government-led smackdowns of free enterprise. Corporations, big businesses, wealthy people and, of course, conservatives are to blame for everything wrong in society and need to be roundly punished for whatever successes they’ve amassed. After all, achievement is largely a matter of luck, inheritance, and successful cheating, right?
On the floor of the House of Representatives, pulling out his “corporations are evil” card, Weiner called Republicans a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the insurance companies. Granted, it wasn’t a particularly intelligent or original thought – he is a liberal’s liberal, after all – but because he happens to be quite good at class warfare rhetoric, I thought it was worthy of mentioning.
After some objections, Weiner decided to revise his comments by being less general in his assertions, saying that every Republican he had ever met is wholly owned by the insurance companies.
Gee, that was better.
That Weiner and all Democrats are wholly owned by the teacher and labor unions is probably largely irrelevant.
That Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by enviro-fascists, pro-abortionists, the race-baiting left and the New York Times probably means nothing.
And despite the fact that the cost of a college education has gone through the stratosphere in recent years - and no one on the left seems to be complaining about the out-of-control education industry – the fact that Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by big education probably should be overlooked.
Just ignore the man behind the curtain.
“Wholly owned by the insurance companies”?
In what way?
How exactly?
What in the world in Weiner talking about?
I honestly believe that liberals do not know what it is they’re actually saying. They’re like Slinkies. They just reflexively move along – alone or in pairs – until they can’t anymore.
I know this is a difficult point for leftocrats to comprehend, but I’ll try to write in small letters …. Dems like Weiner can blame the Republicans all they like, but up until a short time ago, it was the Democrat Party that had super majorities on both houses of congress. They should have been able to pass through a peptic ulcer with that kind of power. They blew it – not the GOP.
That the Dems couldn’t get anything passed for President Obama’s salivating pen has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Republican dissent.
Not a damn thing.
Other than Republicans are on the right side of the issue, of course.
Most ironic is that all of the evidence – yes, genuine evidence – suggests that the man-made global warming crisis is nothing but a hyper-hysterical cartoon, promulgated and promoted by the most unscientific methods, ubiquitous with manipulated (or made-up) data and anecdotal jabber… all for the sake of pursuing a leftist, anti-capitalist agenda.
It has all but been ignored by the American media.
Where is Dateline NBC?
Where is 20/20?
In response, a blogger called Bazooka Joe wrote:
Where is YOUR EVIDENCE??? Why not post your evidence to prove Global Warming is a sham??
Ironically, his response illustrates my point – namely that the mainstream media has been embarrassingly silent on this entire matter. There has been a literal cavalcade of evidence suggesting that the entire man-made global warming story is nothing but an unadulterated fraud.
Kudos to the British press, incidentally, for being the main source for almost all of this information.
(Remember when the America press did stuff like that?)
To being with, Bazooka Joe … since the alarmists, enviro-fascists and hysterical left are the ones making the claim that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise, which in turn is placing the planet in imminent peril, the burden of proof lies with them.
Unfortunately for their side, they have failed at every turn to make the case – every turn.
To this point, there is not one scintilla of data (i.e., evidence) showing that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, as asserted by the likes of King Hysteric, Al Gore. In fact, a closer look at King Gore’s famous hockey stick charts purportedly showing that increased CO2 levels trigger temperature boosts actually suggests that the opposite may be the case.
There is not a neutron’s worth of scientific evidence that human activity is causing temperatures to go up, nor is there anything to back up the claims that the planet is in danger. Every so-called bit of proof put forth by the enviro-fascists is either inconclusive, irrelevant, anecdotal or an outright misrepresentation. There is nothing – repeat nothing – scientific about the so-called causes of global warming and the so-called effects of such warming, nor is there anything of any kind proving that human beings are contributing anything to such phenomena.
It is all nonsense.
However, for the sake of this discussion – and even though the burden of proof does not lie on the side of the rational among us – allow me to enlighten you, Bazooka Joe, with genuine facts (i.e., evidence) that you can sink your teeth into.
During a twenty year stretch – from 1970 to 1990 – 4,500 surface-temperature weather stations in the United States went away – from a count of about 6,000 to around 1,500. As Mark Landsbaum wrote in his remarkable article “What To Say To A Global Warming Alarmist,” that decrease “coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase.”
It turns out that most of those “deleted” weather stations were in colder regions.
Let’s not forget all of the cold weather stations taken offline when the old Soviet Union fell. Coincidentally enough, “global warming” started kicking in right around that time.
This isn’t conjecture, Bazooka, this is fact.
One of the other ugly realities unearthed by investigators in the now infamous batch of leaked ClimateGate e-mails from the East Anglia Research Center – called RussiaGate by Landbaum – is the fact that temperature readings from the coldest regions of Russia were omitted when calculating global surface temperature averages.
Omitted!
It drove “average temperatures up about half a degree.”
This isn’t conjecture, Bazooka, this is fact.
A huge part of the IPCC’s Climate Change Report, which calls for “capping manmade greenhouse gases,” is based on no less than sixteen – count ‘em sixteen – nonpeer reviewed reports from an advocacy group called World Wildlife Fund.
Nonpeer reviewed, Bazooka.
Sounds more like politics than science, don’t you think?
The same is true for the IPCC’s claim that global warming is destroying the world’s coral reefs. The panel cited Greenpeace literature, not peer reviewed science.
Think about this: If a group advocating for something leftists hate – like teen abstinence, for instance – made their “scientific” claims based on anecdotal literature, it would have been laughed out of coherence.
It should also be noted that IPCC claims that global warming is killing the rainforests was also based on nonpeer reviewed sources. As Landsbaum writes: It “was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise,” “authored by two green activists” and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The ‘research’ was based on a popular science magazine report that didn’t bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning.”
The lie that the Himalayas will be without ice in twenty-five years is also not scientifically based. It was something taken from an article in a hiking magazine.
This isn’t conjecture, Bazooka, this is fact.
Let’s not forget all of the Freedom of Information requests for global warming documents – ninety-five in all – refused by East Anglia University, according to the British Government. Does it not raise any flags that one of the three institutions on the entire planet that collects global warming data did not want to share its information?
Why is that?
None of this is conjecture, Bazooka, this is all fact.
Perhaps you can answer the question I’ve posed on this blog repeatedly for almost two years: What should the temperature be right now, Bazooka? What should the weather patterns look like? Keep in mind there has been no global warming for at least fifteen years, according to the lord of modern global warming “science,” Phil Jones. If that’s not an indication that global warming is not happening, what is, Bazooka?
Factor in all the substantiated reports of missing and manipulated data, and you’ve got enough “evidence” that something is awry in Climate Change Land.
Incidentally, I tip my hat to Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma. He definitely gets it. He wants an investigation.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) (yesterday) asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.
“In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.
Science Fiction.
Nice job, Senator.
Remember, Bazooka Joe, we’re talking evidence here. Practically every claim being made by the enviro-Nazis of a globe teetering on the brink of irreversible damage has been refuted – and then some. Trust me, Bazooka, it is everywhere - except the American press.
All evidence suggests that the world is not in peril due to human activity. All evidence suggests that the hysterical left hasn’t a leg to stand on based on two decades of doomsday assertions. All evidence suggests that real scientific study cannot substantiate the claims of a planet with a fever.
Yes, ice melts. But ice expands as well. Both have been going on for quite some time.
Yes, sea levels rise. But they always have.
Yes, it gets hot in the summer, and it snows in the winter. Alert the media.
Yes, the world has warmed before – like when all that ice from the Ice Age somehow went away without the benefit of combustible engines raping the environmental integrity of the planet.
Yes, the world has cooled – like with the onset of the Ice Age.
Let me know if you need any further evidence, Bazooka Joe.
But in a political light, don’t expect to see a framed photograph of him on anyone’s “Republican Wall of Honor” any time soon; don’t expect his likeness to be done up in a t-shirt or knapsack; and don’t expect to see him win any “Leadership” medals.
So there.
In his vivaciously lackluster performance as RNC Chief, he would have to dazzle me until I was rendered unconscious and drooling like Chris Dodd at a TGI Fridays in order to work his way up to “less-than-mediocre” on my score card. And, as difficult as this will be for some to believe, and as much as I hate to disappoint my regular audience of assorted leftists, it has nothing to do with his skin color.
He’s been a failure … and frankly, somewhat of an embarrassment.
For instance, I didn’t particularly take too well to the suggestion that some of us white Republicans are afraid of him because he’s black. I assure you, there are plenty of other reasons to be “afraid” of him as head of the RNC. The word “incompetence” comes to mind.
It gave me no warm and fuzzy feeling deep inside when Mr. Steele, Chairman of the bloody RNC, said he didn’t think Republicans could win this November.
That’s some kind of leader, isn’t it?
Stand back. Watch him work.
How about a little positive thinking, Mike? How about a touch of confidence? How about a little smack talk? Dems are reeling right now. Now’s not the time to put on your namby-pamby act.
I felt like throwing one of my penguin-head, fake-marble bookends through the television when he refused to take on talk show host D. L. Hughley for comparing the Republican Convention to Nazi Germany. That should have, at the very least, had Steele asking Hughley an equally ludicrous question about the Democrat convention looking like an inner-city welfare office.
The latest notch on his elephant pole of accomplishments involves how he is spending donor contributions to the Republican Party.
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele is spending twice as much as his recent predecessors on private planes and paying more for limousines, catering and flowers – expenses that are infuriating the party’s major donors who say Republicans need every penny they can get for the fight to win back Congress.
Most recently, donors grumbled when Steele hired renowned chef Wolfgang Puck’s local crew to cater the RNC’s Christmas party inside the trendy Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue, and then moved its annual winter meeting from Washington to Hawaii.
For some major GOP donors, both decisions were symbolic of the kind of wasteful spending habits they claim has become endemic to his tenure at the RNC. When Ken Mehlman served as the committee chairman during the critical 2006 midterm elections, the holiday party was held in a headquarters conference room and Chic-fil-A was the caterer.
I like Chic-fil-A, incidentally.
To be fair, according to Louis M. Pope, Chairman of the RNC’s Budget Committee, the upscale events that have some GOP doners angry are all profitable.
Still, the elephants are losing big money donors.
Disclosure reports document the exodus of prominent donors who have decided to shift their giving to other party committees. In 2005, the RNC raised $46 million from donors who gave more than $250 and $55 million from small donors. In 2009, Steele’s RNC brought in just $24 million — nearly half as much — from big donors and $58 million from small donors.
When Steele took over the chairmanship last winter, he inherited a $23 million surplus. Since then, the former Maryland lieutenant governor has raised $10 million less than the party collected in 2005 and has spent $10 million more. By the end of 2009, the committee’s surplus had shrunk to $8.4 million, according to campaign finance reports.
So, in one year, the GOP surplus has withered by almost $15 million.
Okay.
I’m not a fool.
I understand when you are behind and outnumbered and in the minority, it obviously becomes necessary to spend cash to “get the word out.” Effective fundraising does cost money.
However, it becomes more difficult to place your faith in a leader who criticizes his opponents for careless spending when he uses party donations on high-end chefs, private jets and private consultants.
The theme over the past couple of days seems to be “poll data.”
To that end, I thought I’d toss around a few more Obamalicious numbers for you to gnaw on.
Once upon a time, when the Messianic Age had just emerged from the electoral womb, and the people of America – and yes, planet earth – were poised to embark on a future of unprecedented promise and camaraderie, there appeared to be nothing that could not be accomplished by the dynamically teleprompted strapping young socialist from Chicago. After all, he had super majorities in both houses of congress, a media more than eager to swallow his offerings, and approval ratings that rivaled only chocolate and orgasms. The world, so we were told, was all Bushed out and new blood needed to be infused in the ailing body of Washington.
What a difference thirteen months can make.
According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 15% of Americans believe Washington is working.
Coincidentally enough, all of Washington is run by Democrats.
After months of what sure looks like political gridlock in the nation’s capitol despite voters having handed majority control of all three political institutions to Democrats back in 2008, almost three-out-of-four Americans today say “Washington right now is broken.”
I was going to say that it didn’t take long for the American people to roundly reject Obamacratic in-your-face, progressive nannyism, but thirteen months of this has been a camel’s eyelash shy of an eternity for Constitution-loving types like myself.
Even more amazingly, one out of four Americans still haven’t been fully convinced that the nation’s capitol is broken.
Actually, a new Rasmussen Reports Poll finds 73% see DC as broken while only 15% disagree. Twelve percent, who’ve been watching the Weather Channel or catching up on “The Sopranos” DVD’s, aren’t really sure.
The 12% who fall into the “not sure” category don’t interest me too much.
I’m not sure why.
But I’d love to ask one of those 15% exactly what it is about Washington that makes it work so well in their eyes. Is it the growing discontent across the country? Is it the push by Dems to exponentially expand the government’s role in all of our lives? Is it the acid the’re taking? Is it the complexity of Nancy Pelosi’s pre-facelift fault lines?
I think 10% of America still thinks Elvis is alive and that Mikey from the Life cereal commercials died from a lethal combination of pop rocks and soda.
“Oh, we don’t really pay attention to the poll numbers,” many of them will claim.
“Poll numbers don’t mean much in the way of determining where support among the American people really lies,” many will say.
“You can’t govern worrying about poll numbers,” they’ll yammer.
Indeed, sometimes there is truth in such thinking, as I have acknowledged here on several occassions, but other times, it can come down to how things are worded.
For instance, if a poll question is phrased, “If you were drowning and the only way you could survive was to profess your alleigance to the Democrat Party, would you do it?” and 96% of those polled said they would do so, the next day’s headlines could read, “People facing adversity overwhelmingly favor Democrats.”
That’s why it’s always good to take a gander at the innards of any poll.
Of course, sometimes there is no ambiguity or complexity whatsoever in polling data and how it’s interpreted – such as in the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll.
It’s fairly straight forward.
Take yesterday’s Daily Tracking Poll, for instance. By anyone’s reasonable measure – except dye-in-the-wool dancing Obamacrats – things just aren’t going so well on their side of the River Jordan.
The number of Americans who “strongly approve” of the job President Obama is doing hit the lowest level yet since the dawn of the Messianic Age – 22%.
Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19. The Approval Index has been lower only on one day during Barack Obama’s thirteen months in office (see trends). The previous low came on December 22 as the Senate was preparing to approve its version of the proposed health care legislation. The current lows come as the President is once again focusing attention on the health care legislation.
To put it in some kind of perspective … less than 4 in 10 Americans actually approve of the current ObamaCare proposals being put forth by the Donkeys.
And nearly 8 in 10 say it would cost more than projected.
Not that any of these things matter to the Dems. They know exactly what’s good for you, whether you realize it or not.
“Guard against the postures of pretended patriotism.”
-
Nothing is a greater stranger to my breast, or a sin that my soul more abhors, than that black and detestable one, ingratitude. - Letter to Governor Dinwiddie, 29 May, 1754
Remember that it is the actions, and not the commission, that make the officer, and that there is more expected from him, than the title.-Address to the Officers of the Virginia Regiment, 8 January, 1756
The ways of Providence being inscrutable, and the justice of it not to be scanned by the shallow eye of humanity, nor to be counteracted by the utmost efforts of human power or wisdom, resignation, and as far as the strength of our reason and religion can carry us, a cheerful acquiescence to the Divine Will, is what we are to aim.- Letter to Colonel Bassett, 25 April, 1773
Every post is honorable in which a man can serve his country. - Letter to Benedict Arnold, 14 September 1775
Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and show the whole world that a Freeman, contending for liberty on his own ground, is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth. - General Orders, Headquarters, New York, 2 July 1776
The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country. - General Order, 9 July 1776 George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799
The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die. - Address to the Continental Army before the Battle of Long Island, 27 August 1776
My brave fellows, you have done all I asked you to do, and more than can be reasonably expected; but your country is at stake, your wives, your houses and all that you hold dear. You have worn yourselves out with fatigues and hardships, but we know not how to spare you. If you will consent to stay one month longer, you will render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you probably can never do under any other circumstances. - Encouraging his men to renlist in the army, 31 December 1776
While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. - General Orders, 2 May 1778
Example, whether it be good or bad, has a powerful influence. - Letter to Lord Stirling, 5 March 1780
You will, by the dignity of your Conduct, afford occasion for Posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to Mankind, had this day been wanting, the World had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining. - Response to the first Newburgh Address, 15 March 1783
If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. -Address to officers of the Army, 15 March 1783
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. -First Annual Address, to both Houses of Congress, 8 January 1790
A people… who are possessed of the spirit of commerce, who see and who will pursue their advantages may achieve almost anything. - Letter to Benjamin Harrison, 10 October 1784
All see, and most admire, the glare which hovers round the external trappings of elevated office. To me there is nothing in it, beyond the lustre which may be reflected from its connection with a power of promoting human felicity. -Letter to Catherine Macaulay Graham, 9 January1790
It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one. - Letter to his niece, Harriet Washington, 30 October 1791
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth & reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States. - Letter To the members of the New Church of Baltimore, 22 January 1793
When one side only of a story is heard and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it insensibly. - Letter to Edmund Pendleton, 22 January 1795
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?” – Farewell address, 26 September 1796
“…….the name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism…” - Farewell address, 26 September 1796
After the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986, and the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, it was questionable whether of not there would ever be another date that would, for me, forever live in infamy – a date that marked an event so profound that I would remember exactly where I was when it happened. I wasn’t alive when Pearl Harbor was attacked, or when President John F. Kennedy was murdered, so their impact on me is purely historical in nature. But after yesterday, I knew February 19, 2010 would become one of those dates – one I would tell my grandchildren about.
It was the day I said, “Enough with Tiger Woods already.”
And so it was … yesterday morning, as the planet waited with bated breath to hear what the world’s most famous philanderer would say after a long silence that I made my way into the living room, ready for what I knew I had to do. Would he apologize? Would he cry? Would he share photographs?
As Tiger Woods prepared to face the world – with millions of eyes and ears ready to lock on him and hang on his every word – I equipped myself.
As Tiger finally approached the podium to speak, I began.
With rag and can of lemon Pledge in hand, I switched off the television and began to dust the coffee table in the living room. It really needed it.
It took a couple of minutes to get that luster I was aiming for, but I got it.
I then made my way to the bathroom and pulled out a wad of hair from the drain in the bathroom tub.
The water goes down much faster now.
I followed this by folding some t-shirts and straightening out the forks in the silverware drawer. I hate it when the butter knives spill over into the fork compartment.
Indeed, it was shaping up to be a morning to remember – a date that I would not soon forget.
February 19th would also be the day I found the cap to the shaving cream can, took all the garbage out, and drove my wife to her colonoscopy appointment. I also managed to squeeze in about ten hours of work.
And I did it all without hearing a single word that came out of the mouth of Tiger Woods – the most important human being on planet Earth, apparently – on a date that will obviously live on in perpetuity, February 19, 2010.
I shan’t forget it.
Let me just say this …
If there is a story I could care less about, or a name that I could go another four decades without hearing in any context, it’s Tiger Woods and his “I banged ninety women because I have an addiction” story. Who cares? I couldn’t give a monkey’s colon who he slept with, how many broads he banged, or how he feels about it. That’s between Tiger Woods, his family, and his harem. To me, his story is the most uninteresting, tedious, irrelevant piece of nothingness this side of Keanu Reeves.
I beg humanity to move on.
Elton John’s claim that Jesus was gay was more noteworthy.
Of course, I’m making note of the Tiger thing right now, so maybe I just ought to shut the hell up, too.
I understand that I am clearly in the minority on this one, but other people’s personal problems simply don’t interest me. I don’t find such matters newsworthy.
And don’t get me started on this whole “sex addiction” thing.
I happen to like Congressman Steve King from Iowa. He is a strong conservative – both fiscally and socially. Admittedly, up until yesterday, I was only vaguely acquainted with him, having heard his name come up a few times here and there, if that.
However, effective today, I hereby proclaim that he is unequivocally one of my new Capitol Hill favorites.
Good ol’ Steve King, I’ll call him from now on.
“There goes old Stevie Boy,” my friends and I will say, if we should ever happen to find ourselves speaking about him here in Staten Island, New York.
Why?
Two reasons: One, he is a huge Second Amendment guy (always good), and two, he has royally pissed off PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) … and anyone who can do that is a moral Goliath, as far as I’m concerned.
What, you may ask, did he do?
He shot an intruder in his home, dead.
A raccoon.
The panty-twisting at PETA this week cannot be calculated.
When U.S. Rep. Steve King found a raccoon trying to chew into his rural Western Iowa home during a snowstorm last week, he reacted like most folks who live out in the country and away from the city.
He grabbed the closest and most familiar firearm and preceded to dispatch the troublesome critter, which he thought might be rabid because of its bizarre behavior during the middle of the day.
Rep. King’s “most handy gun” turned out to be a .45 ACP Desert Eagle 1911 pistol, a popular firearm and caliber for personal and home protection.
Perhaps the congressman was a tad bit over-gunned for the pesky varmint, but it served the purpose, quickly and decisively.
But the best part of the story is what Congressman King wrote about the event on Twitter.
He tweeted:
“Mid-day, mid-blizzard, 15 degrees, Crazy Raccoon chewing and clawing his way into my house. Desert Eagle 1, Crazy Raccoon zero.”
I am still laughing.
Hysterically.
But, sadly, not everyone is getting a chuckle out of this.
The organization that brought the world “Holocaust On Your Plate,” compared dog breeders to Klansmen, and pushed for the word “fish” to be extricated from the English language in favor of the phrase “sea kittens,” is mad at King.
On Tuesday, the animal welfare group challenged the Iowa Republican to “pick on someone your own size, not a small animal seeking warmth in a blizzard.”
“It doesn’t give you comfort in your representatives when a member of Congress finds it amusing to boast of shooting a desperately cold animal who is 100 times smaller than he is and whose only misstep was trying to get into a large, warm house,” Jaime Zalac, a PETA spokeswoman, said a written statement provided to FoxNews.com.
“I hope he’s not on any committees that made decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishment,” Zalac added. “Decent people would call animal control for help, not get on Twitter to boast about having a really, really big gun.”
I would beg to differ with the ethically retarded (thank you, Rahm Emanuel) folks at PETA. Their brain-dead, morally twisted, moronic moonbattery is perfectly wrong. I, for one, draw a wealth of comfort knowing that a man like Representative King – a law abiding family man, with respect and reverence for the Second Amendment - is prepared to defend his home and family from all intruders, whether they be the two-legged or four-legged kind. I think it’s marvelous.
Too bad there weren’t more animals trying to gnaw their way into King’s home.
I’m sure he could have used the target practice.
And I hope he is a member of every committee in all of human existence – especially any that may be involved in decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishment. (I’m still waiting to hear how it’s safer to have a gun in the hand of one criminal instead of twenty million guns in the hands of twenty million law abiding citizens).
And spare me the “poor, little freezing animal in the woods looking for warmth” routine, okay?
For those who see human beings as a poison to the natural world – those who view humanity as toxic intruders – what, pray tell, would that poor little freezing raccoon have done if there wasn’t a house there for it to try and gnaw its way into? Would it have been forced to brave the cold and fend for itself, just as that species has always had to do?
After the last blizzard that pummeled the eastern United States, the countryside should have been littered with raccoon corpses who lost their lives scratching at the windows of warm wintertime human dwellings, no?
Biblical scholars and religious academics come and go, but very few have the insight of Great Britain’s Sir Elton John. Captain Fantastic not only knows how to caress the keys and make them sing, but his biblical prowess is unparalleled in the world of pampered musicians, whiny divas and historically illiterate celebrities.
How does he do it?
Two millennia of humanity were not able to discover it. Holy men, teachers, philosophers, students, archeologists and historians for the better part of twenty centuries could not unearth it. Never has there been serious consideration of such a thing … that is, until now.
Thank you, Sir Elton, for letting the world know that Jesus Christ was a homosexual.
JESUS was GAY – according to the gospel of SIR ELTON JOHN. The singer makes his controversial claim about the Lord in a new US interview that will enrage America’s bible belt.
Elton, 62, declares as he pours out his heart to a magazine: “I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems.”
He adds: “Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East – you’re as good as dead.”
Presumably, these revelations came to him through the Gospels of Doug and Bruce.
I find it interesting that Sir E neglected to specify “Islam” when pointing out that being a gay woman in “the middle east” makes one as good as dead. The all-encompassing “middle east” designation only showcases Mr. John’s extraordinary understanding of that part of the world.
After all, think of all those lesbian executions that take place in Israel.
One other question, Tiny Dancer: Would Jesus have been just as compassionate – or super-intelligent – if he were heterosexual?
Today, the media is bristling with stories about how jobless claims have risen “unexpectedly.”
Befuddled “experts” are scrambling to try and figure it all out.
Excuses, reasons and rationalizations are being crafted in an attempt to explain it all.
Is there yet an expert or an analyst – particularly those of the anonymous variety who are regularly referenced in newspaper and magazine articles – who actually earns their weight in gold? Who are these “experts” – these learned and accomplished faceless specialists of specificity who somehow find their way into so many news stories? How are they found? And who made them experts in the first place?
They won’t turn up in every news story, of course – the local bank robbery, the four car pile-up on the thruway, the opening of a new discount chicken wing place. These stories don’t necessitate the input of “experts.”
However, when the monthly unemployment numbers are released by the Labor Department, the “experts” suddenly appear. When consumer spending figures are made public, “experts” seem to jump out of the woodwork. When the number of new home sales for the previous month hits the news wire, you can’t swing a three-legged muskrat without smacking an “expert.”
We’re up to our pie charts in “experts.”
Yet, for all the times they are called upon to lend perspective, context and clarity to any given news story, these “experts” always seem to be wrong or caught by surprise.
Have you noticed this?
It almost never fails.
When statistics of some kind become newsworthy, there isn’t a group of “experts” or “analysts” around who aren’t confounded.
“Jobless claims rose by almost one percentage point last month, less than what experts had predicted.”
-“The number of loans approved for house purchases fell in April by nearly 13%, more than experts had expected, marking the fourth consecutive monthly drop.”
-“Experts were surprised to see such a significant boost in the number of cars sold last month.”
-“Despite predictions by experts and analysts, the number of first-time home buyers jumped dramatically.”
How exactly did these people become experts? And how is it, day after day, month after month, they continue to be called upon by news agencies for their insights and analyses when they never seem to get anything right?
Either the word “expert” is due for a makeover or reporters need to consult a different set of people.
Were there no “experts” available anywhere who predicted anything correctly?
And if there were, how would we know anyway? Without a score card or program, how can any of us non-aficionados tell one “expert” from another?
Now, to be fair about this, there are, indeed, instances when one will come across something in a newspaper or magazine like, “Experts Say Global Warming Predictions Are Coming True” or “Experts Predicted Recession Two Years Ago.”
Compelling, yes – for about half a nano-second – until one realizes that neither of these examples are quite convincing.
In the case of the former, the assertion is a hoax based on leftist hysteria and a compliant, brainwashed media complex. Funding-hungry scientists play a huge role, too. Without a looming disaster hanging over the heads of humanity like grim death, the money dries up.
The moment there is concrete scientific evidence of any kind that human activity is not only causing temperatures across the globe to rise, but putting the planet in imminent (or any) peril, please let me know.
My e-mail “inbox” is always open to you. I’ll leave the light on for you – an incandescent one at that!
In the case of the latter, the broken clock theory comes into play – that is, even a broken clock will be correct twice a day.
I can say “a recession is coming” until I’m blue in the face. At some point I will be correct.
With that said, please don’t misunderstand me.
There obviously are experts in given fields – and most often, when those experts are called upon, they are often referenced by name.
-”Dr. So-and-So, Head of Blah-Blah-Blah Studies at the University of Anywhere, says the downward trend is expected to continue.”
-”Johnny Q. Expert, renowned something-or-other-ologist at the Whatever Institute, in a published article from last November, predicted the current collapse of the potato chip market.”
Those instances are not the ones I’m talking about here. It’s the catch-all, generic strand of unidentified, never-seem-to-be-right newspaper article “experts” that I’m writing about. I can’t help but wonder if these are the same groups of people that the White House press corp kept harkening to when George W. Bush was in the White House. Remember? Only then they weren’t “experts.” They were regularly referred to as “critics” or “many” or “some.”
-”Critics say you are making America unsafe with your Iraq policy.”-”Many are saying that you aren’t doing enough for the eldery, Mr. President.”-”According to some, you are a bumbling, God-happy, gun-loving Texas yokel.”
In those instances – when criticisms are directed at Republicans – each of the three “groups” could have been sufficiently substituted with the pronoun “I.” -
However you chose to commemorate the one year anniversary of the passage of Barack Obama’s $787 billion porkulus package yesterday – a dinner party with friends, a bowling night, an appendectomy – my hope is that you were afforded the opportunity to stroll down Stimulus Lane and relive some of the magic of the last twelve months. My wish is that you were able to get a true sense of how your hard-earned tax dollars were appropriated and put to work for the good of the country. My desire is that you were able to see for yourself that not an electron of waste nor a morsel of pork – according to the President – can be attributed to his almost one-trillion dollar spendulous extravaganza.
So, how exactly did you spend your Recovery Act Commemoration Day?
Assuming your festivities began with the President’s reaffirmation of its unparalleled success in rescuing the American economy from the ruinous Bush regime – and saving twenty billion jobs and keeping unemployment below twenty percent – I can only assume that you and yours must have pitched one hell of a wang dang doodle.
Personally, I ate pasta salad and snaked the bathroom sink.
How the President’s approval rating ever dipped below 72% is beyond me.
Of course, Senate Republicans – in their never-ending crusade to discredit the otherwise all-feeling, all-knowing, ever-compassionate Barry-O - continue to stop at nothing to portray the stimulus bill as an abject failure and a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
Bastards.
At the Republican.Senate.Gov blog, a list (complete with links) has been compiled highlighting some of the more “stimulating” aspects of the Obama’s porktabulous spend-a-thon.
Along with such economy-saving initiatives as sending $250 stimulus checks to prisoners, funding the construction of a turtle tunnel in Florida, and putting money aside to study cactus bug sex, these tasty projects made the list:
$219,000 TO STUDY THE SEX LIVES OF FEMALE COLLEGE FRESHMEN:
“Five hundred Syracuse University freshmen will divulge the details of their sex lives as part of a women’s health study called ‘The Women’s Health Project,’ being conducted by Michael Carey, SU professor of psychology and medicine. Carey has found himself the target of nationwide criticism from conservatives since he received $219,000 in stimulus funds for the study, which looks at the sex patterns of college women.”
…
$15,551 TO STUDY DRUNK MICE:
“The Rodent Study At Florida Atlantic University In Boca Raton Used $15,551 In Stimulus Funds To Pay For Two Summer Researchers To Help Gauge How Alcohol Affects A Mouse’s Motor Functions.”
…
$1 MILLION TO STUDY ANTS: “Half A Million Dollars Went To Arizona State University To Study The Genetic Makeup Of Ants To Determine Distinctive Roles In Ant Colonies; $450,000 Went To The University Of Arizona To Study The Division Of Labor In Ant Colonies.”
…
$500,000 TO STUDY “SOCIAL NETWORKS LIKE FACEBOOK”:
“A $498,000, Three-Year Grant” To Study “Social Networks Like Facebook.” “Millions of Internet users have been enjoying the fun — and free — services provided by advertiser-supported online social networks like Facebook. But Landon Cox, a Duke University assistant professor of computer science, worries about the possible down side — privacy problems. … To delve deeper into these issues and begin the search for alternatives, Cox recently won a $498,000, three-year grant from the National Science Foundation.”
…
$54 MILLION IN STIMULUS FUNDS USED FOR THE NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN: JONATHAN KARL, ABC News: “The Napa Valley Wine Train, To Tourists A Great Way To See America’s Most Celebrated Wine Region, To Others Exhibit A In What’s Wrong With The Stimulus.” SEN. TOM COBURN: “What that is, is a situation where you see the wealthy or well connected get taken care of and the community suffers.” KARL: “He’s talking about the Napa Valley wine train relocation project, 54 million stimulus dollars to build a new rail bridge, elevate and relocate 3,300 ft of tracks and put flood walls around the train’s main station.”
You can imagine that as a New York Mets fan, I am simply thrilled to know my tax dollars are also helping to pay for a spring training baseball complex for both the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies.
And a pox upon me for neglecting to mention the removal of cracks and potholes in Montana tennis courts – as pork-free as any recession-busting, economic recovery project can get.
As is the study of honeybees.
Or the study of malt liquor and marijuana consumption.
And just think … not all of the stimulus money has yet been spent.
Just wait until they get to studying the effects of crushed ice on nasal mucus, and the long term ramifications of neglected toe jam.
The approach here is akin to pushing down on the mound of overflowing garbage in the kitchen trash can to avoid having to take it out. With only slight manipulation, everything suddenly looks better … even though nothing has changed. Of course, that’s all that matters to today’s liberal: how things look.
Think of it as typical Democrat strategizing.
Keep this in mind as you read about the White House’s latest plan of action.
Earlier today, Salem Radio Network (SRN) News reported the following:
RICH THOMASON, ANCHOR: And with the President’s poll numbers down, and his agenda in trouble, the White House is fine tuning its media strategy.
GREG KLUSTON, REPORTER: White House aides say they’re adopting a more aggressive, more streamlined approach to getting out the President’s message. The strategy includes a faster, more direct response to criticism, and more events at which the President speaks directly to the public without the filter of the news media, such as town hall meetings and online discussions.
This is the same thinking that gives birth to the notion that if the word “cripple” is replaced with the phrase “physically challenged,” the reality somehow changes.
There are a multitude of reasons to fall over in fits of uncontrollable laughter over this story.
Leave it to leftists to once again believe that the rejection of liberal ideas is rooted in the fact that they’re either not getting their message out adequately, or a vast right-wing conspiracy is at play, diabolically deflecting the truth from the citizenry.
Here’s a little reality check: the President’s poll numbers are down – some would say subterranean – precisely because his message is coming through loud and clear to the American people.
Naturally, Barack Obama’s response to his failing presidency is to get more aggressive – to do more to get his Leftopia agenda out there to the people.
That, in and of itself, is mind boggling.
How such a thing could be physically possible is beyond human comprehension. This president is so overexposed – except, of course, when terrorists try to blow up airplanes in Detroit – that it is inconceivable he could actually become more aggressive.
God help us all if he does.
This is the man who once appeared on five Sunday shows on the same day to hawk his Marxist visions. This is the man who could single-handedly neutralize the national debt if he had a dollar for every time he used the word “I” and “me” in any given speech – including his now infamous commentary on the fall of the Berlin Wall last November, which he had nothing to do with, but managed to make himself the focal point of.
More aggressive?
How exactly?
Keep in mind that the President has specified that he will do so without the “filter” of the news media diluting his message of hope and change. He’s going to win back the love he’s lost by circumventing the traitorous fourth estate and return to his community organizing roots (i.e., staying in full campaign mode).
The news media, liberal to their core, clearly are not be distributing the Obamacrat Kool-Aid packets effectively enough for Bam’s liking. They’ve obviously stumbled in his eyes. They’ve dropped the ball. Thus, he’s decided to sidestep them so that his message can really be heard – finally. To him, it’s been thirteen months of distortions, obstructionism and half-truths. How can he possibly get anything done if he can’t get his message out there?
He will be putting on his campaign trail shoes in the hopes of coming back down off the cross to dazzle the masses. It’ll be done through town hall meetings – which apparently are great vehicles for getting one’s message across (providing they’re leftist messages), unlike those blasted Tea Party types who are only interested in causing trouble - and online discussions.
And speaking of “online,” perhaps the White House might try a revamped version of their failed tattletale website from last year.
Remember that one? When the President asked citizens to snitch on other citizens who might have had dissenting opinions about ObamaCare?
If at first you don’t succeed …
Does the President realize how all of this sounds? Does he realize he is sticking a knife into the guts of the very saliva-dripping lapdogs who made him the Messiah he truly believes he is?
Again, in the eyes of Obamacrats, leftist policies are not the problem with the American people; it’s a noncompliant, unfair news media bending and twisting the realities of what the president is trying to do, coupled with a battalion of powerful right-wing, negro-haters who will obfuscate the truth to keep Obama from enjoying any successes whatsoever.
Dems are almost adorable when they try to do stuff.
Blame this one on George W. Bush, if you like - although in doing so, you’d almost be admitting you miss him. You can make the claim that Barack Obama is still wet behind the ears and needs more time to make the job his, but he’s more than a quarter of the way through his term, so the credibility in such a statement is minimal. You can point fingers at the vast right-wing, anti-Obama media complex, but then I’d ask you what your hallucinogen of choice is.
The fact is, the word “disastrous” is far too mild, and comparisons to Jimmy Carter are almost insulting to Carter.
I don’t think anyone could have predicted such a turnaround in so short a time.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Poll, more than half of all Americans - just thirteen months after the dawn of the Messianic Age – say they would not vote to give Barack Obama a second term.
52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.
44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.
Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.
It should be noted that retiring Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd still believes that President Obama will be re-elected overwhelmingly in 2012.
He also said that even if he were absolutely certain he could win re-election himself, he would not run again.
Yeah, okay.
Anyone who believes that, please stand on your head.
When you think “reviving the economy,” what comes to mind?
It’s all about legacy.
It’s only a bit of research by some Harvard “experts.”
I know that the study of climate is a tricky science. I am also aware that, often times, things aren’t quite as they seem.
Language evolves.
And the math is simple, according to Joe:
It’s unclear whether or not it will take a couple of hundred screeching yodelers yelling it from the mountaintops to make her see, or whether having someone beat her with a ten foot Gallup poll will finally do the trick.
It should be noted, for the record, that the “public option” wasn’t “stripped from the bill” because of Republicans, as Pelosi contends.
Some quick post-Health Care Summit thoughts … the morning after.
