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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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."

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

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.

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:

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.

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.