Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Obama attack video: Hillary "1984"

Though I still maintain that Obama is nothing more than an empty suit who will hide his true colors from the electorate, I nonetheless am giddier than a patchouli vendor at a Kos convention whenever Osamabama attacks Her Highness.

Wait, wait…a clarification is in order. Technically, Osamabama didn’t attack Shrillary by making this video, but one of his supporters did. Read into it what you will. Anywho, the details from San Fran-istan:

It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate — one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.

Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic “1984” ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet.

(To see the video, go to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)

And Obama’s campaign says it had absolutely nothing to do with the video that attacks one of his principal Democratic rivals, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, the ad’s creator is a mystery, at least for now.

The compelling “Hillary 1984” video recently introduced on YouTube represents “a new era, a new wave of politics … because it’s not about Obama,” said Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank on politics and new media. “It’s about the end of the broadcast era.”

But some say the ad is just the latest attempt by outside activists to influence political campaigns — or the newest way for campaigns to anonymously attack their opponents.

The video is a sophisticated new take on director Ridley Scott’s controversial Apple ad that caused shock waves with its premiere during the 1984 Super Bowl, and shows the same blond young female athlete running with a sledgehammer toward a widescreen — where an ominous Big Brother figure drones to a mass of zombielike followers. (Isn’t “a mass of zombielike followers” another term for “Democrat voters”? – Ed.)

But this time, the woman is wearing an iPod — and has her candidate’s slogan on her chest. And the Big Brother — whose image she defiantly smashes with a wave of her sledgehammer — is Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner.

The tagline for the attack: “On Jan. 14, the Democratic primary will begin. And you’ll see why 2008 won’t be like 1984.”

An updated Apple symbol — transformed into an O — is followed by the dramatically emerging logo: BarackObama.com.

Veteran San Francisco ad man Bob Gardner, whose work has included political campaigns for former President Gerald Ford, said the video is “very powerful” in its efforts to call for a generational change in politics.

“It puts Hillary spouting cliche nonsense to the drones (better known as “Democrat voters”…hey, deja vu! – Ed.) — while a fresh face breaks through,” he says. “It’s old versus new.”

Someone pass me the popcorn (hold the butter), because this is more entertaining than a Kennedy doing a field sobriety test!

Not far off from the truth, is it?

March 19, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, Obama | Leave a comment

Iraqis put a dent in leftards’ talking points

Sorry, Senator Rockefeller et al, but the Iraqis don’t agree that they’d be better off under Saddam. From the UK:

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month. (I guess these folks don’t read the NY Times or watch CNN, do they? You know, those MSM sources nowhere near them that think they know what’s going on more so than the Iraqis? – Ed.)

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

Yeah, well, what do those Iraqi b@stards know? It’s not like they live there or anything! Oh, wait…they do live there. Uh…ummm…quick, someone throw me a moonbat talking point!

The left is invested so deeply in Iraq’s failure that this undoubtedly deals a blow to the nutroots’ perception of reality. Then again, since when do the ‘tards deal with reality?

March 17, 2007 Posted by | Iraq | Leave a comment

Sex offender registry

In light of the heartbreaking ending that occurred here in the Jacksonville area (details here), I feel compelled to post this link to a sex offender registry. Please take the time to see if any pervs live in your neighborhood or nearby.

March 16, 2007 Posted by | public service announcement | Leave a comment

O’Reilly nails NYT lie

From Newsmax:

Gotcha!

That’s what Bill O’Reilly told his viewers Thursday night as he nabbed the New York Times in publishing a phony story.

On Thursday, the paper ran an editorial claiming that “a screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure.”

But on his Fox News show Thursday night, O’Reilly said the the Times report was made up out of whole cloth.

The point of the Times editorial was that the baby’s mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., were “terrorized — subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school — so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws.”

As a result of this so-called “terrorism,” the Times insisted that the baby was faced with a potentially fatal disorder as a result of the raid that forcibly separated the infant from her mother as the federal raid took place.

Because the Times editorial was so serious, O’Reilly said on his “O’Reilly Factor” show that he and his staff decided to look into the situation.

They immediately found problems with the Times report.

Said O’Reilly: “On March 6th … federal agents raided a factory in New Bedford, Massachusetts … detaining 361 illegal workers … and arresting the owner of the business. Almost immediately … the feds say … 50 detainees were released to care for their children and the rest were taken to Fort Devens for processing and possible deportation.”

Noting the Times’ lead paragraph about “a screaming baby girl” being forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, O’Reilly remarked: “Wow. A screaming baby denied breast milk … so dehydrated she has to be hospitalized? How can this happen in America?”

“Well,” he said, “it may not have happened.”

“Because the Times editorial was so intense, we decided to look into the situation. And guess what? There are some problems.”

Here’s what O’Reilly’s investigators found: Two babies were admitted to two New Bedford-area hospitals shortly after the raid – a 7-month-old was taken to St. Vincent’s Hospital, where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration, while another baby was admitted to St. Luke’s, also with pneumonia and dehydration. Both babies were accompanied by guardians, and both were treated.

Neither child fit the allegations in the Times story.

O’Reilly said, “If there’s another baby in play here, we can’t find it. Of course, the immigration raid did not cause the pneumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration. So the description used by the New York Times to demonize the Department of Homeland Security seems to be false.”

O’Reilly concluded: “America must not harm children and the feds have to make exceptions on humanitarian grounds when kids are involved. The kids are not responsible for the immigration mess. But Talking Points is fed up with misleading and dishonest tactics in this debate. “The truth is that we cannot find a baby in Massachusetts that was forcibly weaned from her mother’s breast. The truth is that the two babies we did find had developed pneumonia on their mother’s watch before the raid.

“Unless the New York Times has other verifiable information, honesty dictates it correct its editorial.”

Don’t hold your breath, Billy O.

March 16, 2007 Posted by | illegal immigration, media bias | Leave a comment

Happy belated IEAP Day!

How could I have missed this? Yesterday was the Fifth Annual International Eat an Animal for PETA Day! Hat tip to Smash:

Meryl Yourish, the originator of IEAPD, explains:

PETA has started yet another offensive ad campaign. This one really reaches bottom—they are using Holocaust terminology, quotes, and pictures to liken the “slaughter” of animals to the slaughter of the Jews by the Nazis.
I’ve already received a letter from a child of Holocaust survivors who is, of course, extraordinarily offended. But here’s the thing: PETA is known for this kind of outrageous publicity stunt—and that’s what it is, an outrageous publicity stunt—and while I am also offended and outraged, there is absolutely nothing we can do that will make PETA change their ad campaign. I’m sure they knew exactly what they were doing, have a plan in mind, and, if they withdraw the campaign, will do it according to their deadlines and their decisions.

So let’s make up our own outrageous publicity stunt. Let’s designate… March 15th, as International Eat an Animal for PETA Day. Everybody set the date on your calendar, and either go out and enjoy a great steak, or cook one at home. Or cook up some chicken or fish or anything else that PETA wouldn’t want you to eat.

I had some yummy chicken for lunch today, and even more for dinner.

What animal(s) did you eat?

I had stir-fry, with 10 oz. of grilled chicken in the sauteed squash, red pepper, crimini & portabello mushrooms, and brown rice. Oh, yeah, and I scrambled a chicken abortion egg to throw into it, too. Today’s lunch: lemon pepper tilapia. Mmmmmmmmmmm-mmmmh!

March 16, 2007 Posted by | animal rights wackos | 3 Comments

Today’s edition of "But…but…they support the troops!"

Go ahead, leftards, and remind us how you “oppose the war but support the troops”! Um…no, you don’t. From Indepundit:

March 16, 2007 Posted by | moonbats | Leave a comment

A new form of torture?

From Cox and Forkum:

March 16, 2007 Posted by | global warming, humor | Leave a comment

"Terry McAuliffe: Chavez is Bush’s fault"

I swear, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. This profile in moonbattery is brought to you by Hot Air, and sponsored by the letters “BDS“:

McAuliffe was about as honest as I expected, which is to say that he didn’t strike me as being particularly honest. During Q&A, our own Ian pestered Terry Mac about his Global Crossing earnings. If you haven’t heard about that or his interesting land deal, well, you don’t know just how much of a hypocrite he is for criticizing the business deals of everyone named Bush. Ian did well going toe to toe with the man who ran the DNC for about 8 years.

Also during Q&A, several liberals in the audience came at McAuliffe from the left, giving him the chance to burnish his nutroots credentials. He took the opportunity and ran with it. One asked him why the US is so unpopular with Hugo Chavez, prompting McAuliffe’s BDS affliction to come out in full glory. Keep in mind that Chavez is turning all of Venezuela into an armed camp as he cozies up to the Iranian mullahs and turns himself into a clone of Fidel Castro. Keep in mind that Chavez calls himself an enemy of the US, and keep in mind that Chavez currently rules Venezuela by dictatorial decree as he nationalizes (a fancy way of saying “steals”) private companies. Keep in mind that Chavez was kept in power, in all likelihood, by a sham election certified real by Jimmy Carter. Keeping all of that in mind, McAuliffe actually blamed Chavez’s actions and attitudes on George W. Bush.

Which, if he’s being logically consistent (is that possible? – Ed.), means Castro is entirely the fault of John F. Kennedy.

As this guy so hilariously illustrates, it’s all Bush’s fault! Amazing that a guy supposedly as idiotic as the left portrays him to be is capable of that kind of evil genius, isn’t it?

March 15, 2007 Posted by | Hugo Chavez, hypocrisy, moonbats | 1 Comment

Canuck moonbats attack Canadian soldier

But…but…they support the troops! From the (not so) Great White North:

A soldier honoured for his military valour in Afghanistan is wondering why strangers beat him up in his hometown bar this past weekend.

“This wasn’t two guys on the ice dropping gloves and going, ‘OK, let’s go’,” Master Cpl. Collin Fitzgerald told CTV Ottawa on Tuesday.

“This was an attack — a sneak attack. To blindside a guy … and hit him with an object, there’s something wrong.”

Fitzgerald is well known in Morrisburg, Ont., a small town about an hour’s drive south of Ottawa.

He says he’d been in the bar only about 20 minutes late Friday, visiting with a childhood friend who introduced him to people as a war hero, when he was suddenly struck from behind with some type of object. Four men jumped him and began beating on him.

“They were saying ‘What kind of hero are you now?’,” Fitzgerald’s mother Arlene told CTV News.

The weapons instructor at CFB Trenton had his foot broken in three places and needed 10 stitches to close a cut above his right eye. Fitzgerald, 27, also suffered a broken nose and two black eyes in the Friday night attack.

Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean recognized Fitzgerald in a Feb. 19 ceremony for braving enemy fire in Afghanistan.

He served eight months there. He was one of the first recipients of the Canadian Medal of Military Valour, “for outstanding selfless and valiant actions” carried out on May 24, 2006, during an enemy ambush “involving intense, accurate enemy fire.”

According to the military, Fitzgerald “repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire by entering and re-entering a burning platoon vehicle and successfully driving it off the roadway, permitting the remaining vehicles trapped in the enemy zone to break free.”

“Collin was safer fighting the Taliban. At least he saw the enemy coming, or knew the enemy was there,” said his mother. “They are just total cowards, nothing but snakes,” said Gerald, Collin’s father.

Fortunately, they did arrest one of the p#ssies who did this. Man…why are “peace” activists so damned violent?

March 15, 2007 Posted by | Afghanistan, Canucks, hypocrisy, moonbats | 5 Comments

Satire alert: Gen. Pace’s apology

From the master of political satire, Scrappleface:

Former President Bill Clinton today added his voice to the chorus calling for Gen. Peter Pace to apologize for remarks in a recent interview in which he branded some kinds of behavior as “immoral“, and said the military should not condone immorality of any kind.

In a newspaper interview, Gen. Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mentioned adultery and homosexual behavior as examples of immorality.

President Clinton, who served as Commander in Chief for two tours of duty, instituted the military policy called ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ which officially allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they lie about their behavior and don’t get caught in the act.

“Gen. Pace’s antiquated ideas could have a chilling effect on military recruiting,” said Mr. Clinton. “In addition, there’s a real risk that the general has hurt the feelings of many who love this country and are willing to fight for our freedom to have intimate relations without so-called moral boundaries.”

Mr. Clinton noted that if the nation had Gen. Pace’s attitude toward adultery just a few years ago, “we would have lost the valiant service of one of history’s greatest commanders in chief.”

“The military desperately needs brave men and women with the character, integrity and dignity that their colleagues can count on in times of war,” said Mr. Clinton, “But Gen. Pace essentially hung out a sign that says, ‘adulterers, homosexuals and liars need not apply.’”

He urged the general to “count the cost of his narrow views.”

“Gen. Pace should acknowledge that he was wrong,” said Mr. Clinton, “and tell all Americans that his remarks constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on his part for which he is solely and completely responsible.”

In related news, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy group for homosexuals in the military, issued a terse statement condemning Gen. Pace’s remarks, saying, “Gay troops are highly offended at the general’s comparison between us and people like former President Clinton.”

Heh.

March 15, 2007 Posted by | satire | Leave a comment

"9/11 Mastermind Confesses in Guantanamo"

From Breitbart/AP:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a chilling string of other terror plots during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon.
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z,” Mohammed said in a statement read during the session, which was held last Saturday.

The transcripts also refer to a claim by Mohammed that he was tortured by the CIA, although he said he was not under duress at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo when he confessed to his role in the attacks.

In a section of the statement that was blacked out, he confessed to the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, The Associated Press has learned. Pearl was abducted in January 2002 in Pakistan while researching a story on Islamic militancy. Mohammed has long been a suspect in the killing.

Using his own words, the extraordinary transcript connects Mohammed to dozens of the worst terror plots attempted or carried out in the last 15 years—and to others that have not occurred. All told, thousands have died in operations he directed.

(Other operations here…)

He said he was involved in planning assassination attempts against former Presidents Carter and Clinton…

Somehow, I imagine that despite the confession, Jimmy the Dhimmi Carter will blame the JOOOOOOOOOOS instead of Mohammed. Anywho, check out this gem:

Mark Denbeaux, a Seton Hall University law professor who represents two Tunisians held at Guantanamo, said that based on the transcripts, Mohammed might be the only detainee who would qualify as an enemy combatant.

“The government has finally brought someone into Gitmo who apparently admits to being someone who could be called an enemy combatant,” Denbeaux, a critic of most of the detentions, said in a telephone interview from London. “None of the others rise to this level. The government has now got one.”

Really? So all those people we’ve got at Club Gitmo were just innocent camel dung dealers that Chimpy McHitlerburton’s imperialist war machine plucked from the streets of Kabul and Kandahar?

Also, Mohammed is the ONLY detainee who’s an enemy combatant because…he admitted to it?!? Well, Hell’s bells! I had no idea that in order to qualify for enemy combatant status, an admission of guilt was needed! You mean to tell me that all of these jihadists that we’ve captured who have refused to talk are all free from the “enemy combatant” label? Well good God (insert deity of choice here), man, let those poor saps go already!

Thank goodness for the MSM, huh? We learn something new every day.

March 15, 2007 Posted by | media bias, religion of peace | Leave a comment

"Carbon" offsets? Pfft…

How about something more useful and fun (and just as logical) as carbon offsets? Courtesy of Hot Air:

It’s the only socially conscious way to properly compensate for your, um, emissions.

I’m almost afraid to ask, but ask I shall: what would be the anatomical equivalent here of one’s “carbon footprint”?

At Cheatneutral, we believe that we should all try to reduce the amount we cheat on our partners, but we also realise that fidelity isn’t always possible.

That’s why we help you neutralise your cheating. Your actions are offset by a global network of fidelity, developed by us. By paying Cheatneutral, you’re funding monogamy-boosting offset projects – we simply invest the money you give us in monogamous, faithful or just plain single people, to encourage them to stay that way.

There’s a place where singles can sign up to be a “project,” too.

Yes, it’s a parody site, but it does a phenomenal job of illustrating the absurdity of the enviroweenies’ “carbon offsets” argument.

“I’m not just the president of Cheatneutral, but I’m also a client!”

March 14, 2007 Posted by | global warming, humor | Leave a comment

Obama: Those poor, poor Palestinians

Here’s leftard rag The Nation’s puff piece on Obama kissing some Palestinian posterior:

Barack Obama did the unthinkable recently: he had the audacity to mention the Palestinians.

“Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,” Obama told voters in Iowa on Sunday. That remark hardly endeared him to the hawkish pro-Israel supporters at AIPAC, where Obama (and Hillary) spoke on Monday.

According to the New York Times, Obama and Hillary held dueling receptions to woo Jewish voters. Hillary offered the standard pro-Israel line, even displaying a sign spelling her name in Hebrew (can’t imagine Barack translates very well).

In the past, Obama has spoken highly of the Palestinian people and the calamities they’ve faced. No doubt, his opponents will now try and use that against him.

Indeed I will. Here are these poor souls for whom Obama’s (and The Nation’s) hearts bleed:

Aw, aren’t they adorable? I tell ya, those little jihadis blow up…er, grow up…so fast these days!

March 14, 2007 Posted by | moonbats, Obama, religion of peace | Leave a comment

More on the Halliburton move to Dubai

I mentioned this a few days ago, but Tony Blankley has a great column on the issue as well. From RCP:

Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman threatened hearings on the Halliburton move (birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, Waxman gotta threaten hearings), while Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy complained that Halliburton was somehow trying to cheat the American taxpayers (even though Halliburton is going to continue to pay its corporate taxes to the IRS — and anyway, Dubai doesn’t tax corporations that site in their city. Hm? No taxes as an inducement to increased business activity — there’s an idea to which Sen. Leahy probably hasn’t given sufficient thought.)

Rather than hold hearings, or construct phantom conspiratorial tax evasion theories, Waxman, Leahy and their fellow ilk might consider that since Congress won’t permit American oil companies to drill for the more than 140 billion barrels of recoverable oil that exists under American ground and in our coastal waters, it only makes sense for oil drilling companies to go where oil drilling is permitted.

I wouldn’t blame Halliburton if it moved all its assets out of a country (that would be the United States) that slanders their good name rather than appreciates their world-class, vitally needed skills. What a pity if Waxman and his fellow anti-capitalists soon won’t have Halliburton to kick around anymore.

But as America is now driving its productive assets and people (such as Halliburton) away, we shouldn’t be too smug.

A modern day version of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps?

March 14, 2007 Posted by | economic ignorance, Halliburton | Leave a comment

Hillary: the VRWC is back!

Catering to the paranoid moonbat base of the Dems, Her Highness revives the Lewinksy-era leftover and leftard bogeyman “”. From NewsMax:

The “vast, right-wing conspiracy” is back, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is warning, using a phrase she once coined to describe partisan plotting.

Once derided for her use of the phrase, Clinton is now trying to turn the imagery to her advantage.

Speaking Tuesday to Democratic municipal officials, the New York senator used the term to hammer Republicans on election irregularities.

She also used the phrase similarly during a campaign appearance over the weekend in New Hampshire.

Clinton was first lady when she famously charged allegations of an affair between her then-president husband Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky were the result of a conservative conspiracy.

As evidence of the affair eventually came to light, the comment was ridiculed. But many Democrats have since insisted that Clinton was correct, pointing to the well-documented efforts by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife to fund a network of anti-Clinton investigations.

Yeah, we sure made up that whole “stained blue dress belonging to a young portly intern” and “lying under oath to deprive a woman her day in court” thingy, didn’t we? Mr. Scaife, you magnificent evil bastard, you! Anywho:

New Hampshire Democratic Party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said she absolutely agreed with the senator’s description of the case.

“People think we’re paranoid when we talk about the vast right-wing conspiracy (ya think? – Ed.), but there is a real connection of these groups – the same names keep popping up,” said Sullivan. “They are the most disgusting group of political thugs that I have ever seen.”

Maybe after Shrillary forces her socialist piece of garbage known as “universal health care” on normal America, she and her @sshat ilk can finally get some meds that they have desparately needed for quite some time now.

March 14, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, moonbats | Leave a comment

UPDATED: When eight is more than 93

UPDATES AT THE BOTTOM.

More Democrat fuzzy math. Compare this…:

Congressional Democrats on Monday singled out presidential adviser Karl Rove for questioning about the firings of eight federal prosecutors and whether the dismissals were politically motivated.

…to this:

So there’s a sense of irony as congressional hearings open on whether the Bush administration has politicized appointments of U.S. attorneys. After all, it was Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, who fired all 93 U.S. attorneys after her appointment in March 1993, something no administration has done before or since.

Reno stated that the unprecedented action was a “joint decision” with the White House, and no doubt it was. The Justice Department liaison with the White House at the time was associate attorney general Webster Hubbell. He would later plead guilty to a felony count of concealing his legal work on a failed Arkansas land deal and one misdemeanor count of tax invasion as part of a plea deal with Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

(Whitewater history and connections here…)

On Aug. 16, 1993, Paula Casey, an active Democrat and a law student of Bill Clinton’s, took over from her Republican predecessor. Her job was to run interference and thwart any criminal referrals related to Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm.

In addition to quashing a criminal referral of Madison from the Resolution Trust Corp., she also was tasked to prevent Judge David Hale, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy and mail fraud, from testifying against the Clintons. She rejected Hale’s effort at a plea bargain. He had offered to share information on the “banking and borrowing practices of some individuals in the elite political circles of the state of Arkansas.” Guess who?

Last Thursday, House Democrats issued their first subpoenas to a number of U.S. attorneys, among them David Iglesias of New Mexico. He believes, and Democrats concur, that he was dismissed because he resisted pressure by two congressmen to rush indictments in an alleged Democratic kickback scheme involving construction contracts and a prominent Democratic former state senator.

But Democrats had no problem in rushing things when it came to U.S. Attorney and now special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s mindless and unwarranted pursuit of Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, Scooter Libby. They had hoped Fitzgerald would bring down Cheney, Karl Rove and even President Bush himself.

So Democrats endorse “political” moves by U.S. attorneys when it suits their purpose just as they supported the politically motivated dismissal of all 93 U.S. attorneys by Janet Reno — a move intended to protect her boss from political, and criminal, repercussions from his and his wife’s past wheelings and dealings.

In other words, letting go of eight prosecutors stinks to high heaven, but letting go of 93 in order to run obvious interference for the supremely corrupt Clintons was A-OK. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

UPDATE (3/14/07 – 11:16 A.M. EST): Thanks to Kira for passing this along from Opinion Journal. Please read it, as it is both short AND relevant to this post. Teaser: Her Highness, being thoroughly familiar with mass firings of US Attorneys (and hiring replacements who are FOB’s), is slamming Bush for the firings. This b#tch knows no shame (with “b#tch” meaning Hillary, NOT Kira! 😉 ).

March 14, 2007 Posted by | Hillary, hypocrisy | 1 Comment

Iran teetering on bankruptcy?

We should be so lucky. From the NY Sun:

Iran’s civil society is experiencing major breakdowns, the country’s reformist press and Web loggers are reporting. Signs of growing economic instability include high inflation, rising prices, food shortages, and long lines at gas stations. (With the exception of the latter, it sounds an awful lot like Hugo Chavez’ “worker’s paradise”, doesn’t it? – Ed.)

The January 20 edition of the Iranian reformist daily Rooz included an interview with an economist, Saeed Leilaz. ” Iran is on the verge of economic collapse,” he said. “A large portion of the economic turn for the worse is due to Ahmadinejad’s policies and management style … [which] have prompted many to publicly criticize [him]. … The administration has increased government expenditures so much that we will face an enormous budget deficit in the coming year.”

Mr. Leilaz also said Iran’s deep economic crisis could “ultimately lead to the disintegration of the government.”

Maybe we’ll get lucky and see Ahmanutjob tossed out on his tuchus before Israel has to bomb their nuke facilities.

March 14, 2007 Posted by | Ahmanutjob, Iran | Leave a comment

NYT piling on Gore?

OK, who spiked the water over at the Old Gray Hag? How did this get past the editors’ eyes? Boy, someone’s sure to get fired over this! From the Big Apple’s fishwrap:

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

“I don’t want to pick on Al Gore,” Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. “But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.”

Now just how in the hell is the left supposed to peddle their “consensus” and “settled science” claptrap if we have pesky scientific dissenters (or, as Ellen Goodman calls them, “Holocaust deniers“)? Anywho:


Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Poor Dr. Easterbrook. He’s going to have to endure death threats and people looking on the payrolls of Exxon et al to see if he’s a Big Oil shill. Continuing:

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” (“Imperfections” and “technical flaws” are euphemisms for “sh#t that’s not true”! Glad I could clear that up for you. – Ed.) He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States. (D’oh! – Ed.)

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.”

Yes, Dr. Reiter, they but “continue to ignore the facts”, and why not? Facts can be damned annoying sometimes.

March 13, 2007 Posted by | global warming, Gore | Leave a comment

Berger & Libby: A Tale of Two Crimes

Excellent column by Michael Barone:

“History will be kind to me,” Winston Churchill once said, “for I intend to write it.”

Indeed, he did. His multiple-volume histories of the two world wars are still widely read, though discounted by professional historians as incomplete and in some ways misleading.

Churchill is not the only politician who has wanted to write the history of his times; most politicians and political operatives want at least to shape the way history views their actions.

Some are better at this than others. In the previous century, Democrats did much better at this than Republicans.

Most of us still see the events of the first two-thirds of the 20th century through the words of gifted New Deal historians like the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who told the story as Franklin Roosevelt hoped and expected it to be told. And, to judge from the response to two recent criminal proceedings, Democrats are doing it better in this century, too.

The first of these criminal proceedings, not much noticed, was the plea bargain of former national security adviser Sandy Berger for removing classified documents from the National Archives, where he had been reviewing them under the authorization of Bill Clinton in preparation for testimony about 9/11.

What he admitted to doing, after first denying it (i.e. lying – Ed.), is extraordinary. On multiple occasions he removed documents from the room where he was reading them, concealed them in his pants and socks, hid them at a construction site outside the building, took them home, and, in some cases, destroyed them.

Some of these documents may have been unique and may have contained handwritten comments that could have looked bad in light of what happened on September 11. I have known Berger more than 30 years and find it unlikely that he would have done something like this on his own.

Did Bill Clinton ask him to destroy documents that would make him look bad in history? I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach when I ask that question. But this or something very much like it seems to be the only explanation that makes sense. The Berger case was prosecuted by career staff in the Department of Justice, with little publicity. In 2005 Berger was fined $50,000 — not a ruinous sum for one of his earning capacity — ordered to perform 100 hours of community service, and had his security clearance lifted for three years, which means he could come back in a new administration after the 2008 election. The attempt to write, or un-write, history — if it was that — evidently succeeded.

Berger’s treatment was light compared with that of Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, Scooter Libby. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuted him for perjury and obstruction of justice for making statements contradicted by journalists Tim Russert and Matt Cooper, and last week, the 11-member jury found him guilty on four counts. He could face years in jail. The case arose out of attempts by Libby and others to refute the charges of retired diplomat Joseph Wilson that the administration had manipulated intelligence before the Iraq war.

Wilson is the Titus Oates of our time, a liar whose lies served the needs of a political faction. Oates’s lie was that there was a “popish plot” to murder King Charles II; Wilson’s lie was part of the “Bush lied and people died” mantra that has become the canonical version of history to much of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party (pardon the redundancy – Ed.).

Wilson’s story, retailed to journalists and then presented in a column in The New York Times, was that he had debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger and that his report had circulated in the highest levels of the administration; he suggested that he had been sent to Niger in response to a request by Cheney.

In fact, as a 2004 bipartisan report of the Senate Intelligence Committee found, all those claims were false, as well as his denial that his wife had recommended him for the Niger trip.

Still, the “Bush lied and people died” mantra resonates. Yet there was no lie. Given Saddam Hussein’s previous use of weapons of mass destruction and his refusal to cooperate with weapons inspectors, George W. Bush had to assume he had WMDs, just as Bill Clinton had before him — as we were reminded by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

The Libby verdict in no way undercuts that. But the Republicans are running behind in the battle to write history.

That’s a Dem for you: if facts don’t suit your needs, just make ’em up.

March 12, 2007 Posted by | Libby, moonbats | Leave a comment

Spitzer: NY schools to monitor kids’ weight

Hat tip to Van Helsing at Moonbattery for an illustration of his blog’s namesake:

Offering a taste of what his constituents have let themselves in for by electing him, Governor Eliot Spitzer has announced that New York will be the “healthiest state.” This will be accomplished in part by requiring that body mass index be monitored in schools.

The objective is “shifting focus to the prevention of disease,” according to Spitzer. You’re not against the prevention of disease, are you? Good, then you won’t mind your taxes shooting up to pay educrats to keep track of how much your kids weigh.

So far there are no plans in New York to install two-way telescreens in all homes to ensure that citizens perform morning calisthenics.

Um, I don’t know how to break this to you, Gov. Moonbat, but being fat is every American’s God-given right. Hell, considering that you’re pals with Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), you may wanna back off of that idea, at least for fear of alienating the poor guy.

You voted for him, NY…you live with it.


“Leave my Twinkies alone, Spitzer…or get in mah belly!”

March 12, 2007 Posted by | moonbats | Leave a comment

"HILL: I’M THE JFK OF 2008"

What an egomaniacal b#tch! From the NY Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the campaign of the nation’s lone Catholic president, John Kennedy, last night as she talked about her challenge in becoming the first female commander-in-chief.

“He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic. A lot of people back then [1960] said, ‘America will never elect a Catholic as president,’ ” the White House hopeful told the New Hampshire Democrats’ 100 Club fund-raiser here.

“But those who gathered here almost a half century ago knew better,” she said. “They believed America was bigger than that and Americans would give Sen. John F. Kennedy a fair shake, and the rest, as they say, is history.”

According to Her Highness, JFK was “smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic”. I don’t know about her religion, but I do know that she is neither dynamic nor inspiring, and considering how she couldn’t remember a damned thing when she was the First Lady (at least, while being questioned by a plethora of investigators), and considering that everyone BUT her seemed to know her hubby was a serial philanderer, I’m beginning to think she’s not very smart, either. But hey, aside from all those differences, she’s just like JFK!

Hold on…oh, I get it! She actually meant she’s like the other JFK, Jean-François Kerry! In that case, I stand corrected. No, hold on again…he’s not smart, dynamic, or inspiring, either. My bad.

Shrillary, you’re no Jack Kennedy, lady.

March 12, 2007 Posted by | Hillary | Leave a comment

Surge "succeeding"?

Nah…that’s just crazy talk! From Robert Kagan:

A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn’t work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn’t exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that “early signs are encouraging.” The first impact of the “surge,” they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.

Don’t worry, jihadists…just hold out until Election ’08, and you’ll be good to go. At least, that’s what our leftard “leaders” are saying. Anywho…:

As the Fadhils report, “Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country.” The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.

Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army’s leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, “One difference between this and earlier — failed — attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work.” In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad “is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the ‘clear and hold’ strategy.” Baghdadis “always want the ‘hold’ part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts — the bad guys can’t intimidate as long as the troops are staying.”

A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, “many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city,” the Fadhils report. “This change in mood is something huge by itself.”

OK, the Iraqis are noticing the change. What about the fishwrap authors?

Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC’s Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of “getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we’re here, start talking to the locals — that is having an obvious and palpable effect.” U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back — a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that “the war has changed.”

No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the “good” news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?

For much of the MSM and the left (pardon the redundancy), success is not an option.

March 12, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, media bias | Leave a comment

Halliburton fleeing tax-oppressive U.S.?

Sometimes, I think these guys are just looking for reasons to piss off the left (which, of course, is almost always a good thing). Dick Cheney, you magnificent bastard! From NewsMax:

Oil services giant Halliburton Co. will soon shift its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Mideast financial powerhouse of Dubai, chief executive Dave Lesar announced Sunday.

“Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston,” spokeswoman Cathy Mann said in an e-mail to The Associated Press. “The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE.”

Lesar’s announcement appears to signal one of the highest-profile moves by a U.S. corporate leader to Dubai, an Arab boomtown where free-market capitalism has been paired with some of the world’s most liberal tax, investment and residency laws.

“The eastern hemisphere is a market that is more heavily weighted toward oil exploration and production opportunities and growing our business here will bring more balance to Halliburton’s overall portfolio,” Lesar said.

Hey, Hillary…I got your “windfall profits tax” right here!

You know, if we had the Fair Tax instead of our current broken and unfair income tax system, companies like this wouldn’t need to seek tax-friendly nations…because we would actually be one!

March 12, 2007 Posted by | Fair Tax, Halliburton | Leave a comment

al-Reuters: Happy Birthday, Osama!

Just tell the Marines where to send the birthday cards, Ahmed, and everything will be cool. From al-Reuters, the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” network:

Osama bin Laden, if he’s alive, celebrates his 50th birthday on Saturday, and his friends in the Taliban prayed for his long life.

The al-Qaida leader’s long silence has fueled speculation that the world’s most-wanted fugitive may have died, though many in the international intelligence community reckon Islamist militant Web sites would circulate word of his death.

“He is alive. I am 100 percent sure,” Taliban spokesman Mullah Hayatullah Khan told Reuters, adding that senior leaders were in touch with bin Laden, reinforcing a widely held view that he is hiding near the rugged Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Khan said special prayers were offered by Taliban fighters in camps in Afghanistan to mark bin Laden’s birth on March 10, 1957, in the Saudi Arabian city of Jeddah.

“We prayed that Allah may give him 200 years to live,” Khan said,” by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location.

“When we woke up today, we offered collective and long prayers for him because he is a great mujahid (holy warrior).”

al-Reuters sends their best wishes.

March 10, 2007 Posted by | media bias, religion of peace | Leave a comment

Victory for constitutionalists

From MSNBC:

In the most important ruling on gun control in 70 years, a federal appeals court Friday for the first time used the Second Amendment to strike down a gun law.

In a 2-1 decision, the court overturned the District of Columbia’s long-standing handgun ban, rejecting the city’s argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

The majority held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment “are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent” on enrollment in a militia.

The ruling is a victory for Tom Palmer, a Washington resident who was once assaulted and wants a gun in the house for self-defense.

“The fact is that the criminals don’t obey the law and they do have guns,” he said. “It’s the law-abiding citizens who are disarmed by this law.”

He was one of six who went to court to challenge the city’s gun law, passed as an anti-crime measure 30 years ago. It outlaws handguns or rifles except for residents with permits, mainly police or security guards.

Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said the ruling could put more guns in the hands of young people. “I am personally deeply disappointed and quite frankly outraged by today’s decision,” he said. “Today’s decision flies in the face of laws that have helped decrease gun violence in the District of Columbia.”

Gun violence has decreased in DC? That’s news to me. It must be all those law-abiding criminals who were disheartened when the ban took place. Anywho, continuing:

The ruling revives a long fight over the 27 words of the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Gun control advocates argue that the phrase “well-regulated militia” means that owning a gun is a group right, subject to restriction.

But the court essentially said the right to bear arms is an individual right for private activities, including self-defense.

“The district’s definition of the militia is just too narrow,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for the majority. “There are too many instances of ‘bear arms’ indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense.”

That’s one thing that has always annoyed me about the left. You have to be a really obtuse boob to conclude that of the original Bill of Rights, all but one were written for individual rights and the one exception (the Second Amendment) was written for groups only. As if the Constitution needed to clarify that the military had a right to use weapons?? Anywho:

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, writing that the Second Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia because it is not a state.

Silberman wrote that the Second Amendment is still “subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment.”

Such restrictions might include gun registration, firearms testing to promote public safety or restrictions on gun ownership for criminals or those deemed mentally ill.

That’s a dissent that is completely inconsistent and incoherent. First of all, she says that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to D.C. because D.C. isn’t a state. OK, then neither does the First Amendment (free speech, free press, etc.) or the rest of the Bill of Rights, for that matter! Tell that b#tch to shut up, since she no longer has a First Amendment right to flap her gums. Hell, neither does Congress…and the Washington comPost! Wow…come to think of it, that Silberman chick may be on to something here!

OK, after telling us that DC doesn’t have to abide by the Constitution, she then says that restrictions can be placed on the rights that DC…well, that DC doesn’t have. Oooooooooo-kay then. I swear, if I didn’t know any better, I would guess that the judge had her mind made up in advance and was trying to craft an opinion around her predetermined ruling! Nah…that never happens.

DC says they will appeal. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS will hear it, and if so, which way the 5-4 ruling will go (since the four libs will side with DC, the four conservatives will side with the gun owner, and Kennedy will flip a coin).

March 9, 2007 Posted by | gun rights | Leave a comment

"It’s time these idiot liberals understand that"

While this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, it is also incredibly entertaining. Via Michelle Malkin:

A tipster sent this fascinating video from left-wing, anti-war group Occupation Project, which interviewed Appropriations Chairman Democrat David Obey in a hallway and grilled him about the war funding bill.

TRANSCRIPT:

Tina Richards, identified as a military mom: (Introducing herself to Obey). Tina Richards. I had left a poem that my son had written (unintelligible) and I was wondering if it had ever gotten to you. He’s a United States Marine. He’s done two tours in Iraq. And he’s ready to be deployed for a third tour.

OBEY: I honestly don’t know…

[Richards discusses son’s suicide attempts and problems with the VA.]

Richards: Are you going to be voting against the supplemental?

OBEY: Absolutely not. I’m the sponsor of the supplemental.

Richards: For the, um, to continue to the war?

OBEY: (Getting agitated). It doesn’t–we’re trying to–the President wants to continue the war. We’re trying to use the supplemental to end the war. But you can’t end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It’s time these idiot liberals understand that. There’s a hell of a difference between de-funding the troops and ending the war. I’m not gonna deny body armor. I’m not gonna deny funding for veterans’ hospitals and for defense hospitals so you can help people who have medical problems. And that’s what you do if you vote against that bill.

Richards: But there should be enough money in the regular defense bill…

OBEY: Well, there isn’t…

Richards: …without continuing the funding for the war.

OBEY: There isn’t. There isn’t. That’s not the way it works. The money in the defense bill — it pays for a standing army. But it doesn’t pay for these recurrent costs. We’re going to add over a billion dollars more to it than what the President was asking for in that bill so we can deal with some of exactly the problems here you’re talking about. How the hell are you going to provide money to the hospitals if you don’t provide the money?

Richards: Well, then, are you going to be in support then of–

OBEY: I HATE THE WAR! I voted against it to start with. I was the first guy in Congress to call for Rumsfeld’s resignation. But we don’t have the votes to de-fund the war. And we shouldn’t. Because that also means de-funding everything that you’ve got in that bill to help the guys who are victims of the war.

Richards: Well, there’s an amendment to the supplemental that’s being proposed to fully fund the withdrawal of the troops [Ed.: The Lee Amendment] —

OBEY: THAT MAKES NO SENSE! It doesn’t work that way.

Fast-forwarding into the transcripts, we see how freakin’ stupid the leftard constituency is…

OBEY: (Gesturing wildly again) WE DON’T HAVE THE VOTES TO PASS IT! WE COULDN’T EVEN GET THE VOTES TO PASS A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION ONE WEEK AGO! How the hell do you think we’re gonna get the votes to cut off the war?!

Man: You stop the funding.

OBEY: (Shouting) HOW IF YOU DON’T HAVE THE VOTES?! It takes…

Man: Filibuster his supplemental request.

OBEY: There is no filibuster in the House! (Well, duh! – Ed.)

Man: Well, in the Senate they could do it.

OBEY: I’m sorry…No, I’m not gonna vote for it [Lee amendment].

(Pointing finger) I’m the sponsor of the bill that’s going to be on floor. And that bill ends the war. IF THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, YOU’RE SMOKING SOMETHING ILLEGAL!

Read the transcript, and/or check out the video! This is more entertaining than watching Mikie Moore doing the limbo!

Hey, Obey…if you lay with dogs, you wake up with fleas!

March 9, 2007 Posted by | Iraq, moonbats | Leave a comment

February ’07 was the 34th coldest in 113 years!

Maybe Time magazine was onto something with that “global cooling” story in 1979? From the National Climatic Data Center:

The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

Tell me again about that “consensus” and “settled science” again?

March 9, 2007 Posted by | global warming | Leave a comment

Kerry’s new job?

Yo, John…I hear there’s an opening for which you are supremely qualified! From al-Reuters:

French President Jacques Chirac is expected to confirm that he will not stand for re-election when he appears on television on Sunday, marking the end of a political career spanning more than four decades.

Just think: French president Jean-François Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) could finally pass his “global test“!

March 9, 2007 Posted by | France, Kerry | Leave a comment

CBS hires Clintonista to rescue Perky’s news career

What? See B.S. is hiring a Clinton crony to rescue the Evening News? Who do they think they are, ABC (see George Snuffleupagus…er, Stephanopoulos)? Anywho, from Michelle Malkin:

Over at the excellent Investor’s Business Daily editorial website, IBD editorials, the board looks at the Tiffany Network’s decision to hire an old Clinton crony:

After “60 Minutes” used fake documents to accuse President Bush of avoiding war service, how could CBS News possibly stoop lower? By hiring a longtime Clinton crony to rescue its evening news show.
Consider this quote, dating from a few months after Bill Clinton first took office: “If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners.”

Those are not the words of a campaign operative or grass roots fundraiser, but of then-CBS Evening News anchorman Dan Rather, speaking on behalf of himself and co-anchor Connie Chung via satellite to President Clinton during a May, 1993, CBS affiliates meeting.

Rather added, “tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.”

With Rather’s retirement last year, CBS Evening News lost its big Clinton fan to sit in front of the cameras. With former first lady Hillary now running for president, however, the network has decided to place one behind the cameras instead as executive producer.

Rick Kaplan, who calls Dan Rather “the gold standard journalists today have struggled to live up to,” (yeah, other journalists have “struggled to live up to” passing off forged documents as authentic in order to take down a sitting president close to election time. Those budding journo-wannabes have lots of work to do if THEY want to be the next Dan Rather! – Ed.) has been a close friend and political adviser of the Clintons all the way back to the 1970s, when the future president was Arkansas attorney general and Kaplan was producing Walter Cronkite.

During the 1992 campaign, while he was executive producer of ABC News’ “Nightline,” Kaplan repeatedly advised Clinton on how to handle the revelation of the then-Arkansas governor’s affair with Gennifer Flowers.

A Newsweek report found Kaplan, while he was CNN president, apparently assisting Al Gore during a debate rehearsal for the 2000 presidential campaign.

Golf with Bill, overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom, a personal two-and-a-half-hour tour of the White House by the president for his 21-year-old daughter are among the perks Kaplan has enjoyed. His response to press questions about the conflict of interest: “It’s nobody’s business…”

Got that? A conflict of interest at the CBS Evening News is “nobody’s business”, folks. Also, thinking about hiring a Clintonista during a campaign where Her Highness is running for president reminds me of the old Church Lady skit on SNL: “How conveeeeeeeeenient!”

Hiring a Clinton crony who tells the world to piss off and mind their own business sounds like a great way to tell the world that you’re going to be objective, huh? Wait, what am I saying? The MSM admitted the other day that they’re not into that whole “objective reporting” thingy anymore. My bad.

Nope…no liberal media bias.

March 9, 2007 Posted by | media bias | Leave a comment

Can we still call him the "first black president"?

Farrakhan on Nightline:

FARRAKHAN ON ‘NIGHTLINE’: Clinton ‘did less for black people than other presidents’
Thu Mar 08 2007 17:40:20 ET

Tonight on ABC News “Nightline,” Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan sits down with Martin Bashir to discuss his health, ’08 presidential politics, Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s views on Israel, and why he says he is not the same man he used to be.

FARRAKHAN ON HILLARY CLINTON AND RUDY GIULIANI:

Bashir: What about Mrs. Clinton?

Farrakhan: Not the young people. Mrs. Clinton is formidable, but Barack is even more.

Bashir: Hillary Clinton was, her husband, Bill Clinton, was described as a black president. What does that make her?

Farrakhan: Really, not much. Although black people looked at Bill Clinton as a black president, he did less for black people than other presidents. We lost the safety net, under his administration, for welfare mothers. We lost a lot. But his charisma, no one can take that away from Mr. Clinton. His ability to use language in many ways has attracted the hearts of black people. And the more the establishment beat up on him with his inappropriate behavior, the more black people understood his weakness, and forgave him, and came around him.

Oh, well. At least Calypso Louie didn’t call him a “white devil” or anything!

March 9, 2007 Posted by | Farrakhan, Hillary | Leave a comment