31 December 2009

Happy New Year???


30 December 2009

ObamaCare vs. The American Voter

According to Rassmussen and virtually every other poll located outside of a barroom dance floor, the majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare. Yet the Democrats insist on pushing this monstrosity through as quickly as possible without even giving the American public a chance to view what the bill contains. And I thought my kids had a hard time listening.

29 December 2009

Obama FINALLY On Northwest Crotch Bomber

Anybody remember Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and its claim that Bush reacted too slowly to a terrorist attack. Or how about that film representing a president who was always on "vacation"?

Christmas Day 2009: A Muslim student identified as Abdul Mudallad ignited a bomb in his panties during the final hour of a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit (a flight the Khaki Elephant has taken far too many times). The bomb burns, then fizzles -- a malfunction that saves the lives of some 300 passengers. A Dutch national, Jasper Schuringa, then seized the terrorist . . . oops, I meant, "potential terrorist" (sorry, Press Secretary Gibbs) and with the help of others on the flight was able to subdue the nutcase and prevent the arrival of 72 under-aged virgins.

Three Days Later: President Barack Obama finally responds to the attack . . . oops, I meant "alleged attack" (sorry, Mr. President ) . . . from his rented $9 million vacation estate in Hawaii.

Of course, Obama's response was not the first official comment by administration appointees. Robert Gibbs earlier referred to the incident as a "potential terrorist attack," by which he must have meant that a terrorist successfully igniting a bomb which he successfully smuggled on board a flight packed with civilian passengers but did not blow up ranks alongside fluffy bunnies on the current White House terror scale. I mean, it's not like we're talking about the potential tragedy of a friend's kid bumping his head. And then there was President Obama’s homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, who declared "everything happened that should have" and when it comes to national security "the system worked." Of course, a day later she claimed that her comments were taken out of context and what she actually meant by "worked" was "failed miserably."

And on the third day, enter Barack Obama -- the guy who promised that terrorists would be nicer to us if we simply said we were sorry over and over and over again (though what exactly we should be sorry for remains about as clear as Harry Reid's muddied ethics). Days after the attack, the President stepped forward to deliver another of his teleprompter-fed oratories, this time delivering a powerful message of commitment to al Qaeda, who claimed credit for the attack . . . oh, wait, he never mentioned al Qaeda. OK, well, he delivered a message of American strength to all terrorist organization who would threaten America . . . oh, I'm sorry, just re-read the transcript and he refers to this as the act of an "isolated extremist." Well, at least he firmly confronted bombing attempt as a legitimate act of terror against America . . . oh, just a minute, he actually described this by saying that "a passenger allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device on his body." One good thing, the bomb did fail and this guy was caught and now sits under watch as an enemy of the state who committed an act of war against America . . . oh, I see, it appears that he is actually sitting in a Michigan civilian prison with his lawyer and, as Obama says, "has been charged with attempting to destroy an aircraft."

Good Lord, how I hate to say that Hillary was right.

26 December 2009

Obama's Top Ten Foreign Policy Debacles

Lately we've been focusing on Barack Obama's domestic policy disasters, you know, seizure of public corporations, government control of health policy, soaring unemplyment rate . . . the whole redistribution of wealth/sacrifice our children thing. But leave it to the Brits to remind us of what the mainstream American media continues to ignore: what a dangerous and diluded foreign policy "The Chosen One" has. (wait, are we finally past everyone sans the sanity suppressed Obots thinking of Obama as "The Chosen One"?)


Nile Gardiner of the UK Telegraph has compiled a list of Barack Obama's Top Ten foreign policy follies in his first year of presidency. Fist of all, hats off to Mr. Gardiner for keeping the list to a mere ten -- yoeman's effort, that. And second, please don't read these until 30 minutes after eating if you want to avoid the bends.
Here is a list of the ten biggest foreign policy follies of Barack Obama’s first year in office. I’ve tried to make the list inclusive of all corners of the world, ranging from Tehran to Tokyo to Khartoum, and frankly could easily have expanded it to a top 20 or even top 30 list. There are plenty to choose from, including some of the most cringe worthy moments in modern American history.

1. Surrendering to Russia over Missile Defence
The White House’s betrayal of US allies in eastern and central Europe by reneging on the deal to establish Third Site missile defences sent a clear signal that Washington was more concerned about appeasing Moscow than defending its friends. It symbolized all that is wrong with Obama’s foreign policy – including the willingness to curry favour with brutal enemies while giving the boot to some of America’s
closest partners.

2. Appeasing the Mullahs of Iran
If Barack Obama makes a New Year’s resolution, I hope it will be that he stops appeasing Tehran. The White House’s strategy of engagement with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been nothing short of a spectacular failure. While Obama has been busy emulating the European Union’s dismal Common Foreign and Security Policy and sending polite video messages, the Mullahs and their puppets have been busy advancing their nuclear weapons programme, enriching uranium, supplying arms to the Taliban, capturing British sailors, test-firing long-range missiles, threatening the annihilation of Israel, and killing pro-democracy protestors.

3. Ending the War on Terror
Not only did Barack Obama order the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay within hours of becoming president, but he also embarked upon ending the entire War on Terror, which was swiftly renamed an Overseas Contingency Operation. Nearly a year later the threat from al-Qaeda remains just as great, if not greater, but President Obama refuses to describe the battle in terms of a global war, and balks at identifying the enemy – Islamist terrorists. At the same time he has given the enemy a huge propaganda victory by endlessly castigating the Bush administration for supposedly “torturing” terrorist suspects, and apologizing for the
counter-terror strategy of the previous US government.

4. Announcing a Surge while Declaring an Exit
There can be no doubt that the three months of dithering by President Obama over whether to deploy more forces to Afghanistan was highly damaging to the United States, and sowed considerable uncertainty within the NATO alliance. When Obama finally made an announcement in December to send an additional 30,000 troops to the battlefield, a huge step in the right direction, his decision was immediately undercut by the simultaneous announcement of an exit timetable, starting in 18 months. It is hard to imagine Churchill or Roosevelt declaring in the middle of the Second World War that they would fight the Nazis for another year and a half, and then start withdrawing their forces on the grounds of cost.

5. Apologising to France for America’s “Arrogance”
Barack Obama’s Strasbourg speech will go down in history as one of the most embarrassing moments ever for a US president on foreign soil. As I wrote earlier, “The President of the most powerful nation on earth traveled to France to deliver a grovelling, massive mea culpa for US foreign policy, including the War on Terror. Utter humiliation for America on European soil in front of a largely French and German audience who bitterly opposed the liberation of Iraq – not even Jacques Chirac could have dreamt it up.”

6. Giving DVDs to the British Prime Minister
I’m no fan of Gordon Brown, but the treatment of the Prime Minister at the hands of the White House on his visit to Washington in March was an appalling humiliation for Great Britain. The PM was received as though he were the leader of a third world banana republic rather than America’s closest ally, denied an official press conference and even a dinner. To add insult to injury, Brown was packed off with 25 discount DVDs ranging from Toy Story to The Wizard of Oz, which couldn’t even be played in Britain.

7. Siding with Marxists in Honduras
The Obama administration has certainly been consistent in its strategy of cuddling up to America’s enemies while kicking its friends. True to form the White House and State Department rushed to condemn the constitutional removal of left-wing, America-hating, Hugo-Chavez-backed despot Manuel Zelaya from power in Honduras, and his temporary replacement with pro-American Speaker of the House Robert Micheletti. Whatever happened to the good old days when the United States actually fought against Marxist tyrants in Latin America and backed anti-communists?

8. Bowing to Emperors and Kings
The last time I checked, Barack Obama was not a subject of imperial Japan, but his bow before Emperor Akihito was a scene straight out of the 1930s. A simple handshake with the descendent of Emperor Hirohito would have sufficed, but the president opted for a full-blown bow when the two met in Tokyo in November. It is one thing to pay respect to a monarch, but quite another for an American president to prostrate himself and his nation before a foreign leader. Needless to say, eyebrows were raised not only in America but across Asia as well. This was far from an isolated incident. Obama did exactly the same when he met with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 in April.

9. Embracing Genocidal Killers in Sudan
I’ve included this in the list because it illustrates the extraordinary lengths to which the Obama administration will go to appease the most evil tyrannies on the face of the earth. In October Obama extended the hand of friendship to the brutal regime in Khartoum led by Omar Hassan al-Bashir, responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands in Darfur, offering to lift sanctions if there were “concrete steps in a new direction”. The moral bankruptcy of this approach was summed up by Obama’s hugely controversial special envoy to Sudan, retired Air Force Major General J. Scott Gration:“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”

10. Throwing Churchill out of The White House
Barack Obama’s decision to throw a bust of Sir Winston Churchill out of the Oval Office within days of taking power set the tone for his foreign policy. It sent a clear signal that the president cared little about the Anglo-American Special Relationship and the transatlantic alliance in general. It spoke volumes about Obama’s disdain for Britain, a nation that he has never mentioned in a major policy speech, as well as his scorn for the kind of powerful, assertive leadership that Churchill embodied.
H/T to Great Satan's Girlfriend: 44 So Far

25 December 2009

Merry Christmas From The Khaki Elephant


24 December 2009

The Grinch Who Stole Health Care

I know it's not over yet. I know that there is a possibility that the House will not support the Senate version of the health care bill, especially since only a few house members have to recover from their spending stupor to shift the vote (the House legislation passed by a narrow margin of 220 to 215). I know that the will of the majority of Americans may still prevail . . . but I can't help being annoyed by the fact the the Senate Democrats, in their lust for power, took a step toward selling our children's future on Christmas Eve.

One thing I'll say for the Grinch, at least he only stole from the children of Whoville once. If this bill eventually passes several generations of future Cindy Lou's (who may be no more than two) will be victimized by increased taxes, high unemployment and a national debt the size of Michael Moore's appetite . . . and all for a health care system that most Americans and the medical industry oppose. Merry Christmas.

Bribing Democrats To Support ObamaCare

If ObamaCare is so wonderful, why are Obama, Reid and Pelosi trying to bribe their own party to shove this thing through?


Of course, not even every Democrat can stomach this prostitution of our future. Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) recently told the National Review Online that Obama and Pelosi won't buy him off. As reported by NRO:
Stupak tells us that he’s disappointed that Democratic leaders have offered him legislative favors in exchange for supporting Obamacare. “This shouldn’t be a bill where you use hush money,” says Stupak. “This isn’t an appropriations bill where you try to get the best projects for your state.”“In the House, we need to bring equity back into the process,” says Stupak. “We need to cut out those sweetheart deals.” If the deals in question are not removed, Stupak will vote against the bill. In the meantime, he says, “my reservations are growing.”
Other things that are growing due to Chicago-style politics in the White House: our national debt, our national insecurity and bile in the stomachs of every American who is actually paying attention.

22 December 2009

Senator Jim DeMint Challenges The Democrats Health Care Tyranny

At first this may seem a bit like watching the hair on your legs grow, but it is critical. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) uncovers a late addition to the ObamaCare bill that would require a "super majority" to repeal the Death Panels (aka, "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards") section of the bill. Like a skilled lawyer, DeMint demonstrates that the Democrats are simply trying set up within this bill rules that would ignore current Senate rules.

Sooo, Still think ObamaCare isn't about government power? With these people it's about authoritative tyranny and "screw the laws." 200+ years of legislative operation . . . and this is a first.




Take a moment to contact your Senator about this travesty and let them know that we know what they're up to.

And drop an note of thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint.

ObamaCare Gives Law The Finger


In yet another unbelievable stroke of villiany, Harry Ried and his Senate lackeys have added one more troubling section to Obamacare, one that would prevent the Senate from repealing the Death Panels (or, as Obama calls them, "the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards") section of the legislation unless there was a super majority to do so (in other words, making them all but permanent).

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection . . . Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3)."

This means that Reid wants to set up a rule to ignore Senate rules. Still think this Bill isn't about government control.

21 December 2009

Time Magazine's Person of the Year: Bernanke . . . Seriously

Not to be outdone by a Nobel Prize committee that just gave a peace prize to somebody who has done less for peace than Yogi Bear, Time Magazine has given its 2009 Person of the Year award to Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the Federal Reserve. According to the rag:


He [Bernanke] knows that the economy is awful, that 10% unemployment is much too high, that Wall Street bankers are greedy ingrates, that Main Street still hurts . . . But Bernanke also knows the economy would be much, much worse if the Fed had not taken such extreme measures to stop the panic. There's a vast difference between 10% and 25% unemployment
So, their decision is based on two pillars of indefensible but unchallengeable liberal logic: the rich suck and the economy is bad, but it could be worse (apparently oblivious to the fact that unemployment under Bernarke's watch rose over 3%). It follows the same thought train as "let's saint Ted Bundy, he killed 30+, but at his age he could have killed as many as 50 and didn't."

Many of us believe the economy would have had a faster turnaround if left alone, that it is the extreme measures that heightened the crisis, but that economic philosophy wouldn't work for Obama apologists like Time who are trying everything within their power to justify the events of his destructive presidency.

18 December 2009

The Snow Job In Copenhagen


The "summit to save the world" (aka, the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen) featured a number of noteworthy factoids like . . .
  • A record low cold front
  • The use of 1,200 limos by the earth friendly attendees
  • A promise by Hillary Clinton that America would give away $100 billion
  • A menu that included scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges
  • A squadron of 140 private jets
  • A lecture from Michael Moore and Sean Penn's pal Hugo Chavez explaining that “Capitalism is the road to hell”
  • And another hollow speech from Barack Obama

The Global Warming crowd has had a bad couple of weeks when you consider that their top scientists were caught fudging figures and their top proponent, Al Gore, was caught outright lying, and this summit in Copenhagen didn't help. What was intended to be a call to awareness became and overt show of hypocrisy by those present. And the speakers . . . well, their speeches furthered showed that this gathering was less about science than an attempt to redistribute America's wealth -- a wealth that only exists for the tax payers in this country because of that dirty word for liberals the world over: "capitalism."

Even "The One" couldn't save the summit's day according to The Guardian:
"Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders . . . The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama"

Apparently even the Obama's teleprompter is having trouble buying the whole global warming thing these days.

13 December 2009

Climate Data Reconstruction

Iowahawk has a great post about the reconstruction of climate data that was revealed by some carbon footprint loving hackers. It's long, but after a close read you too will be able to create a hooey hockey stick that looks a little like this:


And after an even closer read, you'll want to use a hockey stick a little like this:



The post places the climategate controversy in context and is a worthwhile read for anybody interested in whether or not they can turn in their parkas for speedos.

Read the entire post here:
Fables of the Reconstruction (Or, How to Make Your Own Hockey Stick)

06 December 2009

Sarah Palin Jokes At The Gridiron Dinner

Sarah Palin's book tour continued as she delivered her 11-minute speech at the Washington Gridiron Club's annual Winter Dinne. She was joined by the less-than-electric Barney Frank, but there is little doubt that it was the popular Palin's presence that pushed the events attendance to about double its average.

Palin's homespun humor often confuses the media elite, but I suspect they caught some of the shots she delivered.

When pointing out that her book did not have an index, preventing journalists from searching there for their names, she provided one on the spot: "A: Alaska, media not understanding it, page 1-432. B: Biased, Page 1-432."

She even took a shot at McCain, referencing her former running mate with, “The view is so much better inside the bus than under the bus."

And the current administration was not left out. “If the election had turned out differently, I could be the one overseeing the signing of bailout checks and Vice President Biden could be on the road selling his book, 'Going Rogaine.'” (for those of you living through CNN, Palin's book is called "Going Rogue.")

But, since the best jokes are always rooted in reality, my favorite was her dig at Obama. She said that as she was looking at a magazine cover of Obama and Chinese president Hu Jinato during an airplane flight when the passenger next to her said "Hu's the Communist." Palin added, "I thought he was asking a question."

05 December 2009

Angelina Jolie Calls Barack Obama A Socialist


Khaki Elephant fav Angelina Jolie has finally (if temporarily) broken the tabloid tongue wags of "Brangelina" with a recent US Weekly article where the actress is credited with dissing "The One."

According to the report,

"She hates him [Obama]," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly . . . "She's into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise," adds the source.

Now, I'm a fan of Jolie's work and if I were Brad Pitt, beyond always walking around in speedos with a wink, I would without a doubt tap Jolie over Aniston, but I have to admit that I couldn't care less about her politics. I don't care what Hollywood lefties like Sean Penn, David Letterman or Alec Baldwin have to say about world affairs because they have no idea what they're talking about. If they want to drop some wisdom about drug rehab then I'll bow to their expertise, but please don't ask me to listen to their input on economic policy or the military. I feel the same way about celebrities when they agree with me.

So don't expect The Khaki Elephant to spend time talking about Jolie's insight concerning Obamunism . . .unless it is shamelessly used as an excuse to post a saucy picture of her.

Mo' Zo . . . A Rant On Obama

30 November 2009

Michael Moore's Letter To Obama

The Khaki Elephant has not exactly been a defender of Barack Obama. In fact, the posts on this blog tend to revolve around the revelation that President Obama may well be the worst president in U. S. history, from his juvenile economic policies to his love affair with government control. His leadership has been so amateur and damaging that is seemed nothing could prompt support from these pages . . . enter Michael Moore.


Today Michael Moore released an open letter to Barack Obama criticizing any strategy that would increase troop size in Afghanistan. In Moore's words,
"If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do . . ."
This is a far cry from Moore's initial take on the Afghanistan War depicted in his the epic work of misinformation, Fahrenheit 9/11, where he used a clip of Richard Clarke claiming that Bush's response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was "slow and small," a claim that had Moore's implied agreement in the film since he did not contradict it. Of course, that was back in the day when Moore criticized the Iran war by claiming it wasn't justified because Bin Laden was in Afghanistan. Wait a minute, didn't Obama promise to track down Bin Laden by now? Anyway, back to Michael Moore . . .

I have two problems with virtually everything Michael Moore does. First, his work is always based an overt manipulations of the truth that only his supporters and the functioning brain dead fail to see through. Second, well, if you try to follow his logic for more than a few minutes you need only be mildly observant to determine that Moore simply isn't very bright.

His manipulation of the truth is ever present. If you found Fahrenheit 9/11 then check out Fahrenhype 9/11 which exposes the misleading edits and outright lies of his post-terrorist attack treatise . . . though, come to think of it, in Dude, Where's My Country Moore claims there is no Terrorist threat. His tactics shouldn't surprise us since he launched his career with the film Roger and Me, an alleged documentary containing the primary premise that he could not get an interview with then GM Chair Roger Smith, and the film never mentioned the fact that Smith actually granted an interview.

The letter to Obama contains Moore's trademark manipulations (my gentle-mood way of saying "lies"). In the letter he claims to know that there are "LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan," though how he counted them we may never know. He implies that Obama's actions are prompted by "corporate backers" who could only be the dreaded "big oil" that Moore claimed were behind the initial push into Afghanistan (though Moore has never explained why America has failed to get all that blessed oil Bush was after). Moore asks "what would Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" apparently forgetting the Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican with little tolerance for the laundry list of lies that are Michael Moore's make up. He asks Obama "What would your grandmother do?" apparently forgetting that she was a "typical white woman."

But what bothers me the most about Moore is that he's just not very bright, yet some people fail to see it. His logic is virtually non-existent. For example, here is his choice for shining example of a President doing what's right when it comes to avoiding war:

We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Truman the only world leader to drop atomic bombs on populated cities? Nice choice of an "anti-military" president, genius. Of course, in the mind of Moore the intellect is hardly important when one can be blinded by hatred of the U.S. military. As his letter explains,

Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD.
Forget his ignorance that the intelligence agencies of the U.S., Great Britain, Israel, France and Germany all believed in the existence of WMDs in Iran, Moore's insincere "love" for our kids in the military is undercut but his obvious failure to acknowledge that our military leaders are those same "kids in the armed services" with added experience. They are not the rabid torturers Moore pretends them to be. Nor are they hell bent on sending "more poor people to kill other poor people" just for a few kicks (Note: I suppose Moore is referring to our soldiers as the first "poor" in that equation, once again ignoring Pentagon statistics that American soldiers come from families with a higher average income than non-military Americans . . . but let's not let facts get in the way).

The bottom line is that we cannot fail in Afghanistan. Barack Obama may have considered withdrawal while he was campaigning, but it appears as though reality has set in and he knows the price of failure. We paid it on 9/11/01. Michael Moore would have us pay it again.

29 November 2009

Climate Change Data Trashed

Climate Gate Continues . . .

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has admitted that they threw away the data on which their global warming theories were based. That's right, the data that allegedly supported Al Gore's apocalyptic environmentalism was tossed in the trash along side last year's Marks & Spencer ad. And here I'll drop the rather important side note that the UEA's Climate Research Unit is the primary source of data for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their attempt to levy climate taxes on countries like America (taxes that Bush was wise enough to condemn while Obama, well, Obama is Obama). You may have heard of the Kyoto Protocol which bases its existence on this data.

Why, it's almost as if the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit had something to hide.

On the heels of last week's hacked e-mails exposing what appears to be a planned manipulation of data coupled with strategic attempts to discredit skeptics . . . oh, and let's not forget that New Zealand's climate change proponents were caught doctoring statistics . . . the doomsayers of the global warming crowd have been dealt another blow.

According to reports, the University of East Anglia could not comply with requests for their documents and data that were sought under Freedom of Information legislation because, well, they . . . um . . . they . . . threw it away, undoubtedly just before their dog was about to eat it. Of course, in their minds this should pose no concern as they "do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” In other words, nobody should worry about reviewing our data, just trust us. So much for peer review.

Now I'm no scientist, but isn't science supposed to be based on analyzing data? And isn't that data generally maintained (i.e., not "thrown away") in case your hypothesis shifts during evaluation? And doesn't peer review require access to the raw, undoctored data? I guess I need to google the University of East Anglia since I don't know much about the school. Maybe I'm too harsh on them since the steps of scientific method generally aren't covered until the 3rd grade or so.

Party Crashing The State Dinner Prompts Obama To Action

The military has been asking for decisive direction from Barack Obama concerning a certain deadly war in Afghanistan for months, but it took a pair of tax-dodging party crashers to swing the Commander in Chief into immediate action. And this despite his obvious affinity for tax cheats, having carried a number of them into the White House along with the new drapes.

According to NBC:

A Secret Service officer stationed at the first checkpoint at the White House state dinner last Tuesday did not verify the names of a couple allowed in even though they were not on the guest list, a senior law enforcement official told NBC News on Friday.

The officer saw that Tareq and Michaele Salahi were not on the list and, rather than verifying if they were legitimate guests, assumed they would be vetted at the next checkpoint and allowed them to pass, NBC learned.

The source also confirmed what two White House staff sources earlier told NBC News, that the Salahis were not “waved in” or had their names manually entered into the White House computer to gain entry.

The couple were vetted at the next checkpoint, but when their car was turned away they simply got out of the vehicle and walked to the pedestrian entrance. No need to call in Jason Bourne for this security breach.

Obama has called for an immediate investigation. No doubt there where soon be a panel, complete with a new "State Dinner Czar," to provide some expert advice on security . . . perhaps they could use automotive industry representatives for the task since they didn't use them for the "expert" panel on the automotive industry.

Meanwhile, what is Obama's plan for Afghanistan?

H/T: Hot Air

And here is some video of the grand entrance:

28 November 2009

When An Apology Isn't An Apology

I saw this over at Holycoast.com, describing yet another "meaning less apology where people who didn't commit the offense apologize to people who weren't harmed":

Members of one of America's oldest Protestant churches officially apologized Friday — for the first time — for massacring and displacing Native Americans 400 years ago."We consumed your resources, dehumanized your people and disregarded your culture, along with your dreams, hopes and great love for this land," the Rev. Robert Chase told descendants from both sides. "With pain, we the Collegiate Church, remember our part in these events."
Apology? This is nothing more than a typically liberal self-indulgence. Try as he might, the Rev. Robert Chase cannot give an apology for the acts of others to people who were not among the offended. And the good Reverend (and people like him) knows it. The Reverend knows that when he says "we" he is really saying "they." It's easy to apologize for the actions of others, especially when you can do so with a nod and wink that you would never have done something like that yourself.

Let's face it, this is not an apology but an attempt to elevate oneself with an air of innocence and superiority. It's a tactic Barack Obama uses virtually every time he steps on foreign soil.

26 November 2009

New Zealand's Role In The Global Warming Hoax

Watts Up With That? just dropped a report on the latest scandal cooling the jets of the global warming crowd. According the the award winning science blog:

The figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century
The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:
From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:
In other words,

What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming . . . There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

Ah, but perhaps we could venture a guess as to why the NIWA falsified statistics to "demonstrate" a global warming trend? Could it be, oh, I don't know . . . money? Al Gore is not the only one bent on getting fat from the foment of the global warming hoax.

25 November 2009

Minnesota Still Sucks

While driving through the rain today, maneuvering around construction pylons, I was struck by a random thought, "Minnesota still sucks."

It dawned on me that it is Minnesota's fault that we are on the verge of a Senatorial debate that could forever alter our country's leadership in health care/pharmaceutical innovation and economic stability. With their idiot election of failed talk show host and least amusing SNL alum, Al Franken, they gave the Senate the magical 60 left-leaning loons who are driving this country down it's current legislative path concerning health care. I know what you're thinking: Minnesotans didn't actually elect Franken, he stole the vote through judicial manipulation. True, but the fact that the vote was close enough to allow for that to happen should tell you all that you need to know about the state's voting population. Some suggest drug testing for Minnesota voters, I'd prefer IQ tests.

(Before some of you once again bring up the 2000 Presidential election with claims the Bush stole that election via the Supreme Court, I suggest that you review what the Supreme Court actually ruled on [hint, it was not the vote tally] and, more importantly, the fact that every subsequent recount of Florida not only proved Bush the winner, but demonstrated that he won the state by a greater margin that was officially recorded.)
Back to Minnesota sucking. First they introduce Gov. Jesse "the body" Ventura into mainstream political dialogue where he can continue to baffle the country with claims that 9/11 was an inside job, then they give us a babbling baboon like Franken who's presence allows for a Senatorial 60 leftest, giving the Dems absolute power in a critical time.

Not even the acquisition of Bret Farve can change the cold, cruel fact: Minnesota still sucks.


23 November 2009

Debt Shock

Even the laughably liberal New York Times is starting to experience Obamanomic sticker shock. According to the Times headline, the “Federal Government Faces Balloon in Debt Payments: At $700 Billion a Year, Cost Will Top Budgets for 2 Wars, Education, Energy.” The page one article explains that the debt is rising so quickly that "payment shock" is knocking on the door of the American economy so "there is little doubt that the United States' long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone."

Little wonder. With his "brilliant" plans of bailout bucks to GM before bankrupcy and a stimulus package that has produced fewer jobs of late than the buggy whip industry, Obama has displayed the economic accumen of a '70s child star before their '90s rehab. And now he wants to add a trillion dollar government managed health care system to the mix. A system directed by the same people who have destroyed the fiscal condition of medicare, social security and the post office. Looks like we could be in store for generations of debt shock.

22 November 2009

ObamaCare And The Louisiana Purchase

When Thomas Jefferson dropped some coin for the Louisiana Purchase back in 1803, most folk considered it a pretty good deal. America had to borrow $15 millions from Britain (at 6% interest) to make the purchase from France but in the end gained 800,000 square miles of land and dialed down the growing threat of war with the French (and this in the days before their idea of conflict was arguing over the proper decorum for surrender).

Now that deal seems better than ever.

Obama and his cronies just made another Louisiana Purchase, this one borrowing over $100 million from our children's financial future, to pay for a single vote: Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) "YEA" vote to move forward with the Senatorial debate on their version of the ObamaCare bill. Well, it's been reported as a $100 million provision specifically for the state of Louisiana but Landrieu added a little clarification to the agreement, "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix." And you thought Napoleon had a complex about power.

Not only are we now talking $300 million in tax payers dollars that the Democrats have so easily given away, but they did so without even securing Landrieu's vote on the final bill as she explained that her vote to proceed with the debate did not ensure that she would ultimately vote for the bill.

So I wonder . . . when it comes time for the actual vote, how much will the Dems give to other fence-riders in order to buy their love and seize control of another private sector institution? With Harry Reid pimping Obama's agenda we're about to literally witness a parliament of whores.

21 November 2009

Reid Secures 60 Votes For ObamaCare

The will of the people be damned! The future of our children can go to blazes! The world's most powerful economy can collapse to Euro-standards! It appears as though the obtuse Senate leader Harry Reid has the 60 votes needed to move forward with the worst bill in America's long history.

After Sen. Mary Mary Landrieu of Louisiana sold her vote to Reid for a $100 million provision, Sens Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas became the 60th senator to agree to cast her vote in favor of this debacle. It's still unclear how much it will cost the American tax payers for Blanche's vote.

Let this be a lesson to the American people -- when you are voting for a Democrat you are not voting for a person, you are voting for a liberal agenda.

We just learned that the government run postal service lost $3.8 billion last year, and the left now wants to provide that same level of competence to the direction of America's health care system.

The Orwellian Obama administration has sealed government records, seized private corporations and now have their sites firmly set to subdue the populace through government controlled health care, despite the voice of the majority who believe the private sector is best equipped to provide medical care and advances.

Make your voice known. Contact every politician with a "D" affixed to their name and let them know that this will not stand. They have revealed their agenda of mass control and America will not stand for it!

The Global Warming Hoax Cont.

Computer hacking is bad. Awful. Real, real naughty. That said, the hacking of e-mail exchanges from a British University has revealed that the hackers are not the only real, real naughty on the internet. And I'm not even talking about The Huffington Post.

Over 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents were lifted from the electronic banks at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain, many of which contain discussions on how to manipulate climate change data and derisive attacks on skeptics of anthropogenic global warming. Oh, how I hate to use the word "conspiracy" but what do you do when it fits? Is this further evidence that the global warming movement is a hoax aimed at gaining funding for certain university departments and pocket-loads of spending cash for Al Gore?

The e-mail exchanges are between some of the most prominent proponents of the global warming hysteria including James Hansen (Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Michael Mann (of Mann's "Hockey Stick" fame), Stephen Schneider (Al Gore's buddy), and Gavin Schmidt (NASA climate modeler). Are the e-mails legit? Well, it has been verified by the BBC and the university itself that these self-serving servers have been hacked.

Since I doubt you'll see any of these damaging emails surface in the mainstram media, here are some examples of the exchanges for your edification:


From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: //';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='<';l[4]=' 110';l[5]=' 114';l[6]=' 111';l[7]=' 98';l[8]=' 115';[9]=' 111';l[10]=' 46';l[11]=' 88';l[12]=' 88';l[13]=' 88';l[14]=' 64';l[15]=' 97';l[16]= 102';l[17]=' 102';l[18]=' 105';l[19]=' 114';l[20]=' 98';l[21]=' 46';l[22]=' 107';l[23]='>';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 110';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 98';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 88';l[33]=' 88';l[34]=' 88';l[35]=' 64';l[36]=' 97';l[37]=' 102';l[38]=' 102';l[39]=' 105';l[40]=' 114';l[41]=' 98';l[42]=' 46';l[43]=' 107';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='<'; for (var i = l.length-1; i >= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
Telephone XXXX School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia Norwich


From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael MannSubject:
Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***



From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith
will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit


From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt

Guys,

I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…


This one is unattributed
Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

08 November 2009

The House Passes Obamacare (H.R. 3200)

Last night the House of Reps passed the healthcare bill that The Wall Street Journal labeled "The Worst Bill Ever" by a vote of 220-215. And while 219 Democrats supported this national disaster, there was a truly bipartisan effort to stop it as 39 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote against it. One Republican voted in favor of the bill, Joseph Cao of Louisiana, a vote purchased by Barack Obama with a "commitment from President Obama that he would work together to address the health care issues of Louisiana, including the FMAP crisis and community disaster loan forgiveness, as well as issues related to Charity and Methodist Hospitals." Nice. Real nice. And given Obama's previous "commitments" to only raise taxes on the wealthy, provide a 72-hour review of legislation and support the 2nd amendment . . . let's just say I hope 'ol Joe has a back up plan (and hopefully another profession, come next election).



So, where do we go from here?



The fight is far from over. In fact, this is how we knew it would play out. The focus now turns to the Senate, where Harry Reid will need to score a super majority twice to proceed (a difficult task at this point) and the Republicans have vowed to read the bill in its entirety on the senate floor, which should take more time than an emergency room wait in Canada . . . though just barely. With that delay, the Senate debate will continue into next year -- an election year -- a year in which Americans can make the Democrats pay for their assault on freedom, just taxation, and the American health care machine that has produced more cures and innovation than any other in the world.

07 November 2009

Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley: American Hero

There simply can't be enough press about Sgt. Kimberly Denise Munley, the police officer who took down Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood killer who decided to shoot the infidels who defiled his take on Islam.


Civilian police Sgt. Munley, a former soldier who spent a good deal of time at Fort Hood in her own right, was called into action after a 911 call at 1:23. Within 5 minutes she had shot the gunmen.

As reported in the NY Daily News:

Just three minutes after Hasan shot up his fellow soldiers, Munley tracked him down outside a pre-deployment facility and unloaded on him at close range.

"She fired on him twice and drew the attention toward her. He immediately spun around and charged her," said Chuck Medley, director of emergency services at Fort Hood. "She fired a couple more rounds and fell back, continuing to fire."

Munley was hit in both legs and her wrist during the gun battle but stayed on her feet and kept firing at the charging gunman.

"She struck him a couple times in the upper torso and he went down," Medley said. "When she rounded that corner, she made a split-second decision to put her life at risk. If she had not responded the way she had, we would have had an extremely high number of dead and injured."

Thank you, Sgt Munley, for your act of courage in defending those who defend America.

03 November 2009

What's In That Health Care Reform Bill?

Not sure what's in the House Health Care Reform Bill? Well, you're in pretty good company: namely the majority of house members who are actually going to vote on the thing. It's a little like watching my kitchen-challenged brother compete on the Iron Chef.

But if want to treat this bill like you did Tristram Shandy in your college days (which is to say, reading a Cliffs Notes version while you drink cheap beer that you bought at the party store by writing a check for $1.27) then you should check out the summary Ric put together over at Freadom Nation. You can find the whole post here: The final healthcare bill looks SCAAARY

02 November 2009

WSJ: ObamaCare Is The Worst Bill Ever

Washington has produced its share of terrible bills (and I will pass on the easy Bill Clinton shot . . wait, did I just do that?) but according to the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed pages, the current Health Care bill is the "The Worst Bill Ever!" According to the article:

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Um . . .

The Journal lists four primary reasons as to why this bill is a disaster waiting to happen.

  1. The spending surge: while Pelosi and company continue to contend that the bill will only cost the country a paltry $829 billion, the CBO is figuring the cost to top a cool trillion, or roughly equivalent to the gallons of botox that Nancy Pelosi has poured into her jowls to keep that sneer in place.
  2. Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare: In this case the democrats are looking to take money from a Medicare program that already has "unfunded liabilities" of some $37 trillion over 75 years and drop it into an even larger government behemoth. Debt to pay debt? Only possible with Obamath.
  3. European levels of taxation: Were talking $572 billion dollars in new taxes that is sure to pound American businesses. There is a simple truth about taxation: if you want to stop an activity, tax it. In this case we're talking about jobs. Rest assured that European levels of taxation are always followed by European levels of unemployment (though I still believe European techno club music will remain optional).
  4. The insurance takeover: "The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing" which means: defined coverage levels and medical rationing will be determine by Washingon D.C. And you thought Doctor visits were a pain in the past.

Nancy Pelosi has "reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare." I'm sure that passing this "worst of" bill will spell tremendous congressional gains for the GOP, but that would be small consolation after giving our children and their children trillions in national debt, government controlled insurance and rising unemployment.

01 November 2009

The Obama Fix Fails


As reported by the Heritage Foundation:

The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They’ll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors’ support of health care reform . . . [during the the secret Obamacare negotiations] the White House and Senate leaders have ordered Congress to pass a $247 billion dollar payoff to doctors groups for their support of comprehensive health care reform.
Well, in case you were out of the loop (or busy with hunting and fishing this time of year), the bribe failed on a 47-43 vote. And Dirty Harry wasn't happy:

Reid brought the $247 billion bill to the Senate floor this week as part of a deal to secure the support of doctors groups such as the AMA for passage of a separate, broader healthcare reform bill later this year. But the strategy has backfired.

…Reid told reporters on Wednesday that he was led to believe that more than two dozen Republicans would vote for the bill, though he did not mention the AMA by name.

“I was told by various people that we would have 27 Republican votes, which was pretty reasonable to assume since one of the co-sponsors of this legislation was [Sen.] Jon Kyl [Ariz.], the assistant Republican leader.

“I was stunned when I was told by his cosponsor Sen. Stabenow after we introduced this legislation that [Kyl] couldn’t support it. Even though he is a cosponsor he couldn’t support the legislation,” Reid said, making reference to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), the lead sponsor of the 10-year doctor payment fix.

And while I'm ecstatic that this bill (S. 1776) failed, I still feel the need to give a shout out to fellow Michigander Debbie Stabenow who stood by her convictions and voted to bribe doctors despite its obvious ethical depravity and absolute failure. Vito Corleone is petting his kitty with pride.

Fire Rich Rod . . . Please?

In a break from politics I have to take a moment to make an appeal to my Alma Mater:

Fire Rich Rod . . . please?

There were excuses last year, but all the crying in the world about installing a new system could never justify a 3 - 9 record while losing to Toledo at home (and do I need to remind anybody of the 42 - 7 beat down the Buckeyes delivered?)

Now the 2009 season has turned into another disaster. The Wolverines have dropped to 5-4 with a Big Ten record of 1-4. Are you kidding me? And Saturday provided a sleep depriving route at the hands of Illinois, giving the Illini their first win in weeks.

Enough is enough! This guy has turned the winningest program in the history of college football into a conference cellar dweller. RICH ROD MUST GO!!!

31 October 2009

Campell Brown On The Obama / Fox War

My girl Nikki posted a great piece by CNN's Campell Brown concerning the Obama team's attacks on Fox News. Check it out here: Campell Brown: You Go Girl!

While I question Brown's motivation a bit with her premise that Fox is too hard, MSNBC is too soft and CNN is juuuust right, the ultimate point of her story is a bullseye. The Obama administration sees bias where ever there is criticism, but ignores intent where there is agreement.

Khaki's editorial: When you discount editorial shows like Hannity and O'Reilly, which are intended to contain bias like their editorial equivalents on other networks, it's obvious why the Obamas fear the stellar ratings at Fox and took a frightening step for an American President in attempting to silence a news agency. It is the only network that still fully investigates the White House. Fox is still the only station asking hard hitting questions about healthcare legislation, the economy, unemployment, regulatory reform, Afghanistan, and Iran . . . questions the administration would rather not answer. Questions the administration doesn't have to face on other channels. Questions that illuminate Obama to a nation that is still largely in the dark about his agenda and the damage that it has already done to this country.

Who Is Visiting The White House?

The Obama administration is attempting to continue their ruse of being a transparent administration by releasing some of the visitor records from the White House. Unfortunately, the promised transparency concerning campaign contributions, complete RNC and CBO access to proposed Health Care accounting figures, and providing a 72 hour public review of proposed legislation are still in the "monkey flying out of the ass" stage.


Close to 500 visitor records were released (far from the actual number of visitors) that include a who's who of liberal activism. Interestingly, William Ayers, Michael Moore and Jeremiah Wright appear on the list, but the White House contends that they were not that "William Ayers, Michael Moore and Jeremiah Wright." Still no word on the "actual identities" of these less familiar friends of the White House who carry those very familiar names. Doppelgangers? Just throwing out a theory.

The sad fact is that this is not the "major milestone in government transparency," which Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics, claimed it to be, but just another distraction to steer public conversation away from what the administration's left hand is up to. First, the White House is forced to admit that not every visitor's name has been released. And secondly, come on, is anybody shocked that Oprah, Kim Gandy and Andy Stern have graced the Oval Office love seat? And is it news that people who happen to have the names William Ayers, Michael Moore and Jeremiah Wright (but are not the famous William Ayers, Michael Moore and Jeremiah Wright) have stopped by to say hello?

If the Obama administration wants to talk about transparency, why not give us the type of information that really matters?

26 October 2009

Did Jesus Name The Anti-Christ

Talk amongst yourselves.



As for me, I don't think he's the anti-christ, just a putrid president.

13 October 2009

Barack Obama's Nobel Prize

Duck season . . . the salmon running . . . this has been a tough time for me to write with everything that's been happening in Michigan, a sportsman's paradise. But I'm back now and feel compelled to dig up some old news just so I can have my say. So, it's back to that Nobel Prize.

I have to admit that I'm not sure what the criteria is for selecting a Nobel Prize winner, but I suspect when it comes to prominent Americans nominated for the prize the prime requisite is criticizing America. Exhibit A, B, and C? Jimmy Carter blames America for racism and poverty and BAM: Nobel Prize. Al Gore blames America for destroying the earth and BAM: Nobel Prize. Barack Obama blames America for war and attacks on innocent civilians and BAM: Nobel Prize.


Of course, it's the latest Nobel Peace Prize award that is the most laughable. Barack Obama? Really? And when exactly did this nomination take place? When he had been in office for, what, two weeks? This leaves me wondering if he won this award based on the 100 days that he actually spent in the Senate, his community organizing with ACORN or the charming way that he sounds a bit like Mel Tillis when the teleprompters are off. The bottom line, which even his supporters are forced to admit, is that this guy has done absolutely nothing to deserve this honor, assuming that the soiled award can still be considered an honor.

What troubles me is that this "prize" is awarded out of Norway, the land of my blood, and we Norwegians used to be about accomplishment. Erik the Red left the homeland and crossed the ocean in a rowboat, allowing for his son to eventually make his way to the Americas. We celebrate Leif Erikson because of what he did. We acknowledge Thor Heyerdahl because of his expeditions, not because of his turn of phrase. Roald Amundsen had a great mustache, but the fact that he was the first person to reach both the North and South Poles is why history remembers him. Ibsen was the father of the modern play, Munch gave us the Scream. Let's face it, Norwegians used to be about what one actually did and now . . . now, a man who has done little beyond write two memoirs and spend his nation into debt without a single notable accomplishment toward peace has a Nobel Peace Prize.

In other news: please watch for Khaki's upcoming series:
All The Reasons America Sucks.
I'd like to thank the committee for this award. I am truly humbled.

12 October 2009

Columbus Day

I've never been a fan of Columbus, the man or the city in Ohio where Buckeyes (i.e., "worthless nuts") reside. As for Chris Columbus, the man who sailed to the Americas in 1482 not the director of a pair of Harry Potter flicks, I've always felt that the props he received over the years for "discovering" America were misplaced since the Vikings beat him by some 500 years. That said, I'm starting to grow weary of the PC Posse and their Columbus day attacks of "he couldn't discover America because people already lived here" or "he brought about the rape of paradise."

First of all, we all know what is meant by "discovering America" so can we stop the word games? Columbus came from a civilization that had a written language, so unlike the natives of the new land, he was able to communicate in perpetuity the nature of the world as he saw it without the "telephone game" of miscommunication that oral traditions create (for those of you who rely on oral traditions: Mackinac Island was never actually a giant turtle . . . and what the hell are you doing reading blogs?) Columbus gave us the vision of old America. In addition, Columbus' "discovery" brought inventions to the new world that allowed for the type of civilization that we enjoy today. Inventions like, say, the wheel. I don't know about you, but I for one am glad I can make it from my house to Montreal in a few hours, shaving off 30 days from Native American canoe trip.

Second, let's stop romanticising the "paradise" of the new world. Some Native American tribes practiced cannibalism, torched entire forests to destroy their enemies and sacrificed woman to the gods. My brother-in-law is a Native American and I have a deep respect for the many cultures and histories of America's first residents, but let's not pretend is was all love and flowers.

Finally, Columbus was Italian which means: Pizza -- perhaps God's greatest gift. So let's stop the nonsense and spend a few moments in recognition of this great adventurer.

03 October 2009

Anne Frank Video On YouTube

The Anne Frank Museum has uploaded the only existing video footage of Anne Frank to YouTube for mass consumption. The video is only 20 seconds long with Anne appearing around the 10 second mark in a second story window as she leans out to watch a bride and groom below.

According to the museum, the scene dates to July 22, 1941, prior to the Frank family going into hiding, resulting in the powerful diary penned by a brilliant little girl. If you've read the diary then I suspect you find this clip moving with unexpected power.

28 September 2009

Biden Never Thought Stimulus Would Work This Well

During a conference call with 55 governors, territorial officials or their designees, Vice President Joe Biden enthusiastically effused about Obama's stimulus plan: “In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well.”

Really?

They promised this would prevent unemployment from reaching 8% and we are now pushing double digits. They vowed that it would not require another tax hike but we now know that was a lie. They claimed that the package would avoid special interest and pork spending, but the congressional pet projects in this spending orgy look like a sleazy Webkinz convention. They said it would not create deficit spending but the current projections calculate deficit spending over the next 10 years that is close to equalling the total deficit spending that was created over the past 200 years.

If Biden never thought the stimulus package "would work this well," I wonder what exactly they were planning for this country.

27 September 2009

Mo' Zo: The Squirreliness of ACORN

I'm so glad that making the big time with Pajamas Media hasn't changed Zo. Here's his take on the latest ACORN debacle.

25 September 2009

Barack Obama's Vapid UN Speech

It's amazing to hear the George Stephanopouloses . . .eses of the world still prattle on about the wisdom of Barack Obama as he dazzled at the UN. Of course, if you didn't hear Obama's vapid speech for yourself and want a clearer perspective, then I suggest you try the foreign press.


The United Kingdom's top circulating journal, The Telegraph, posed the only question a sane observer could have asked after listening to the speech: Barack at the UN: Was this Obama’s most naïve speech ever? According to journalist Nile Gardiner

It’s always a bad sign when a US president gets several rounds of heavy applause at the UN General Assembly, as Barack Obama did this morning in New York. Needless to say, the loudest cheers from the gathering of world leaders came when he condemned the actions of a close US ally, Israel, in continuing to build settlements in the West Bank. You can always rely on attacks on the Israelis to generate the biggest roars of approval at any meeting of the United Nations, and Obama dutifully obliged.
But Israel wasn't the only nation Obama attacked in his speech. I mean, no Obama speech to foreign dignitaries is complete without an attack on the good ol' U.S. of A. Of course, the president never impugns himself with these attacks. No, the Obama way is to talk about how horrible America was BEFORE he took control and led us through the darkness with his vision of light. Take this ember from the speech:
So for those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions that we have taken in just nine months. On my first day in office, I prohibited - without exception or equivocation - the use of torture by the United States of America. I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and we are doing the hard work of forging a framework to combat extremism within the rule of law.
All to the delight of those who hate us. Never mind that Obama's words were vapid utterances, he bathed in adoration.

But we owe it to ourselves to look at the facts. When Obama railed against "torture" he was, of course, talking about waterboarding. And how many terrorists were actually waterboarded by the pre-obama evil America? 3. That's right, only 3 all of whom where high level al Qaeda operatives, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed who couldn't tell us enough about his twisted organization by the time the intelligence officers were done. (and I've always found it amusing that some of those who think this butcher should be executed are so upset that the CIA got him wet). But what's more interesting is this actually happened 6 years ago, not "9 months" as Obama implies. Obama didn't stop waterboarding, Bush did.

Then Obama threw out the applause line of closing Guantanamo Bay, but what does that mean? Is he going to free all of those prisoners? Of course not, he's going to move them to facilities within the U.S. where they are sure to be treated worse than the were at Gitmo.

So once again Obama took cheap shots at his own country to elevate his self image. To bad Joe Wilson wasn't there.

And while Obama continued to take this naive approach to foreign relations, Iran continued to ignore UN regulations with the discovery of an secret nuclear facility that could only have been built to create weapons grade uranium.