This one's making the rounds and since the man represents a nearby District in Virginia, I thought I'd put him on display here. 

Yet another Democrat stumbling into telling the truth.  It's an astonishing thing.  No, not so much what he said but that a Democrat would tell the truth:

That at a meeting with the Jefferson area Tea Party this past Tuesday.  Many years ago, it wouldn't just be their hands that would get tied up.

You can't help these days but to long for the good ole days.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Asshats, Democrats

Or trying to.  Let's go to this New York Time piece titled "Democrats Cheer Budget Forecast on Health Care Bill":

As House Democrats geared up for a possible vote on Sunday to pass health care legislation, the Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis allowing them to point to significant cost savings in the decades ahead.

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said that the nonpartisan budget office had determined that the package of legislation, which would cost about $940 billion over ten years, would produce "the largest deficit reduction of any bill we have adopted in Congress since 1993," when it passed tax increases sought by President Clinton.

In the first ten years, the health legislation would reduce deficits by $138 billion,and the effect on deficits over the following decade would be much greater -- Democrats said $1.2 trillion -- although such long term forecasts are more speculative. The savings would come largely from reductions in the growth of Medicare spending, with new fees and tax increases also contributing.

The full text of the legislation, which would put the final touches on a delicate compromise between the House and the Senate, was to be issued later on Thursday, House Democrats said.

The bill passed by the Senate in December would have reduced deficits by somewhat less -- $118 billion -- according to the budget office, whose estimates are considered authoritative. House leaders, who are seeking first to adopt that Senate bill as written and then to fine tune it with a second bill that could be approved by the Senate with a simple majority vote, had spent the past week or two crunching the numbers with the budget office in order to make the best possible fiscal case to their nervous caucus.

The cost of the legislation has been a major concern for many centrist Democrats, a crucial bloc for leaders who are trying to muster the majority to pass the bill.

"We are absolutely giddy over the great news," said the House's number three Democrat, Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, who as the party whip is the keeper of its vote tallies.

But what are they giddy about?  This?

House Democrats are trumpeting a new Congressional Budget Office report saying that the "reconciled" Senate version of the Obama healthcare bill will save $120-$130 billion in the first ten years, and more after that.

The Washington Post and Politico are blaring headlines about these claimed savings.

However, House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI) issued the following statement:

"The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate.  Yet House Democrats are touting to the press - and spinning for partisan gain - numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm.  Rep. James Clyburn stated he was "giddy" about these unsubstantiated numbers.  This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority - in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office - to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost."

It's continued smoke and mirrors folks.  It's what they're about.

Here's what the CBO did release:

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

The deceit continues.  Don't be sucked in.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (66) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Health Care

Over at Hot Air, they're pointing out a news story that indicates the US might be prepping for an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons program. It seems that the Air Force wants a whole bunch of "bunker buster" bombs moved from the US to Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean where we have a whole lot of bombers -- and is the primary "safe" airbase for strikes in the Middle East. There aren't a whole lot of places that both have bunkers we'd like to see blown up and relatively close to Diego Garcia, and Iran's right at the top of the list.

I have my doubts about the story, though. Because I'm a bit of a military buff.

The two bombs specifically cited in the article are the ones the Air Force designates "BLU-110" and "BLU-113." The author calls the latter a "massive" bomb, weighing 2,000 pounds. Not surprisingly, he got it wrong.

The BLU-110 is a superb weapon. It does what it was intended to do quite thoroughly. But it only weighs 1,000 pounds -- that's about standard weight for a bomb these days. (During World War II, most bombs weighed between 250 and 500 pounds.) It's a good penetrator for blowing up hardened targets, but only moderately hard targets. Against really, really tough targets, it won't do much. And Iran's nuclear bunkers are really, really hardened targets.

Now, the BLU-113 is a bit more serious weapon. It weighs in at around 4,500 pounds, not 2,000, and has a fascinating history. During the first Gulf War, we suddenly discovered we needed a "bunker buster" -- and fast. So in seventeen days flat, we went from "we need this" to "we got this."

Seventeen days.

The GBU-28 (from which the BLU-113 is derived) is an amazingly simple concept that really should not have worked. They took the barrels from 8-inch artillery guns, buried them most of the way in the ground, poured in about 600 pounds of molten high explosive, let it cool, dug it out, slapped fins on the front, a guidance unit and a fuze on the nose, and dropped it off an airplane. And by god, it worked.

Now, the BLU-113 can cause Iran some serious inconveniences they were to suddenly start falling from the sky over their key nuclear facilities. But these "bunker busters" ain't about to bust the Iranian bunkers -- they've built them seriously strong. No, to maximize our chances of taking them out, we'd need to use the BLU-113's big brother, the bomb they call "Big BLU."

Now, remember that the BLU-110 is about half a ton. BLU-113 is about a ton and a quarter two and a quarter tons. Big BLU is 15 tons of bomb. And the Air Force has only ordered three of them. Maybe. Possibly more. For obvious reasons, they don't give out detailed inventories of such things.

Now, even Big BLU might not be enough to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons facilities. They might be hardened against anything short of a nuke. And I don't see Obama ordering a nuclear strike on Iran, even if it could be plausibly spun to the world as a "work accident" by those clumsy Iranians who tried to build a bomb and instead blew themselves up.

So, what's behind this sudden move of smaller "bunker buster" bombs to Diego Garcia? Beats me. Maybe it's to threaten Iran's other, less hardened facilities. Maybe it's for a possible strike on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal should the situation in that country suddenly go pear-shaped and it looks like Muslim militant fanatics might be on the verge of getting control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Maybe it's not for a threat against Iran, but an actual strike. Maybe it's just normal resupply movements, shuffling around inventory to cover possibilities. Maybe some Pentagon accountant had to suddenly burn up a bunch of transportation contract money, or had a brother-in-law who had some cargo ships that needed a job.

What is almost certainly is not is a prelude for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. At least, not by itself. But it's certainly an interesting development.

Permalink | Comments (22) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: War On Terror

I can't believe I missed Howard Stern's epiphany regarding the modern day Democratic Party. I heard the audio just this morning at iOwnTheWorld, a blog I've never heard of before but will check out again. Howard Stern on his radio show the other day said that he's had enough with the Democrats. He's realized that they are exactly what many of us have said they are: communists.

Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Media

"Oh, now here we go," you're thinking, "Baron's finally crossed the line between your regular wingnut crank and cartoonish super-villainy wingnut."

Ooh, a Meat Puppets song. From Too High To Die. Sweet.

Okay, focus. Contrary to what you're thinking, the provocative title of this ditty has nothing to do with Adolf Hitler's rather well documented authoritarian bent or prejudices. Nay, I refer to the fact that apparently enough people found Hitler to be a brilliant, captivating orator that he ended up in power when he was in actually a rather dim bulb who would lead his country to utter ruin. What's the word I'm looking for here...hyperbole?

Napoleon would be a more apt metaphor, perhaps. What got me thinking about it is how much Obama and Pelosi's push to sign any bill with "health" and "reform" in the title remind me of the decision to invade Russia/USSR. I've just never seen any footage of tingly-legged French soldiers listening to Napoleon delivering a firebrand oration. What can I say? Hitler's what I know. The History Channel has taught me nothing of Napoleon - and we don't teach France in Texas public schools.

Whenever you hear someone say, "The National Socialist Workers Party - i.e. Nazis - could have won WWII if..." know full well the next thing out of their mouth is irrelevant. The only way the Nazis could have possibly won is if Hitler died the day after they took France. Actually, when they invaded France because his nincompoopery allowed 300,000+ soldiers to escape at Dunkirk. As horrible it is that he rose to power we should thank the Lord for Hitler's tactical and strategic numbskullery. And syphilis.

The ultimate stupidity was failing to subdue Great Britain before opening a second front against the USSR. War with the USSR was inevitable; even though there's not much functional difference between them, fascists and commies hate each other. Like the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. Russia has always been the impossible dream for Western European. Crushing, painful retreat and defeat; broken, miserable, frostbitten suffering in pursuit of an unachievable victory.

You see where I'm going. Obama is leading the Democrats on a death march towards a victory that will remain just over the horizon. Considering the path he has chosen you've got to give him credit for getting this close. If he can get a dozen more Dems out of the trench and into the crossfire plus a little procedural three card monty he might actually end up with something to sign. If not, the Dems will have been led to slaughter for nothing and Obama exposed as the cynical, lying, everything-that's-wrong-with-Washington left-wing ideologue he's always been.

As horrified as I am that we're this close to seeing this monstrosity foisted upon us, I can only marvel at how ineptly Obama has handled the process. Health care reform should have been a slam dunk. It is popular in the abstract. There are Republicans willing to play ball. A semi-competent executive should have had this bill signed and in his pocket by July.

Mistake one was a trillion dollar stimulus spendathon that made a mockery of any notion Obama would usher in a post-partisan era. Having failed to subdue unemployment, Obama opened a second front on health care reform. Promptly sitting on his hands while Reid and Pelosi once again cooked up the most poisonous, partisan bills possible.

Seriously, it's like they took the Republican Party Platform on health care and deliberately went through line by line to ensure they were doing the exact opposite of every single point.

Not at all what you would expect from a super genius. A little moderation, some outreach, tact, gravitas and Obama would have the health care skin on the wall - free to pursue amnesty for illegal aliens or whatever abomination he has in store for us next.

Anyway, I just keep picturing the Russian winter. Miserably slogging along; so cold you can slice meat off a walking draft horse. It can't feel the cut and the wound freezes instantly. When you get home you must immediately turn around and try to repel the hoard that just drove you home in defeat.

What would have happened if the Nazis took Stalingrad? Come spring, before they were resupplied or relieved, they would have been set upon and annihilated by the Soviet army. Even in victory, defeat.

So it is with health care. Even if they drag this stinking corpse across the finish line there are states and individuals lining up to counter-attack. It will be with them far past November's elections and even 2012.

Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama

H/T Gina Cobb.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Constitutional Issues

Water in California is as valuable as gold. Since there isn't enough to go around, it has been rationed and supplied only to those whom the government believes need it the most. Unfortunately, the people who live in California's San Joaquin Valley have had their water turned off in order to protect a tiny fish called the delta smelt. As a result farm land that used to be prime agricultural land are now dust bowls. It devastated the economy as well, driving up the the unemployment rate in some areas to as high as 41 percent. Yet for months on end, President Obama said and did nothing to help the people in the Central Valley.

But now the president's health care reforms are on the ropes and the San Joaquin Valley's two blue-dog Democratic congressmen Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa have been reluctant to support the president's reforms. So imagine everyone's surprise when the Department of the Interior announced yesterday that it is dramatically increasing the water supply to the valley's parched lands. And what a coincidence, now the two California congressmen who were once "undecided" are being moved over into the "yes" column:

As a vote approaches on Obama and Pelosi's government takeover of healthcare, Code Red is now considering two supposedly "undecided" California Democrats, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, to now be "yes" votes.

The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared. Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement:

"Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza."("Interior Announces Increased Water Supply Allocations in California," U.S. Department of Interior news release, 3/16/10)

The sleazy vote buying and bribery are awful enough on their own because it debases our entire Republic and undermines the electorate's faith in their government. But this kind of corruption is a symptom of the larger issue, which is Barack Obama's frightening lack of conscience toward the American people who he is supposed to be serving. We have seen over and over again his callous disregard for the will of the American people. Poll after poll has shown the majority of the electorate is hostile to ObamaCare, yet he dismisses their opinions like he swishes away a fly.

But nowhere has his indifference been more obvious than with this apparent water deal. The once lush and fertile Central Valley has been a barren waste land for months and the president did nothing to help the restore the land or the people living there, who over the months have been made virtually destitute. They were invisible. That is, until he needed their congressmen's votes for his health care reform package. Only then did the valley finally get the water it desperately needed.

Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Congress, Health Care, House of Representatives

Sometimes you have to focus on priorities. And for American males, that means it's Bracket Time. We all know who should win the NCAA Tournament, but the play's the thing, and the play starts tomorrow, with apologies to Arkansas-Pine Bluff and Winthrop who already had their play-in game. To keep it simple, I propose those interested in the discussion just name their Sweet Sixteen, Final Four, and National Champion. To get it started, here are mine:

Sweet Sixteen
Midwest Regional
Kansas
Maryland
Ohio State
Georgetown

East Regional
Kentucky
Wisconsin
West Virginia
New Mexico

West Regional
Syracuse
Butler
Kansas State
Xavier

South Regional
Duke
Utah State
Villanova
Baylor

Final Four
Kansas
Kentucky
Syracuse
Baylor

National Champion
Kansas

Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Sports

Amid the whipping and driving Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer are orchestrating in their attempt to get a simple majority in their own party to deem the Senate version of ObamaCare passed, some Democrats are venting their frustration at President Obama.

And several House members interviewed by POLITICO said Obama should once again postpone the departure for his looming trip to Australia, Indonesia and Guam, already moved from Friday to Sunday. While creating a natural deadline for eleventh-hour health care talks, that's once again becoming a problem as Obama tries to sell reluctant members of his party on the reform legislation.

"For the first time in eight months, the president is finally getting his hands dirty, and now he's going to hop on the plane? Please," said a Democratic congressman, requesting anonymity.

Key swing voter Representative Jason Altmire (D-PA), who has already received three phone calls from the President, observed what is going to be a prevalent theme in the 2010 midterm elections:

"When people come up to me, there is a decided anti-health-reform view," Altmire said, referring to the conversations he has with people at fairs, restaurants and church festivals in his Pittsburgh-area district. "The calls to my office have been pretty negative, and it's gaining momentum every day. I'm giving everybody a chance to be heard, but if my district's not on board with this, I'm not going to be able to vote for this."

A preview of this venting by the electorate was prominantly displayed tonight in the President's interview with Fox News Bret Baier. Having just watched Baier's interview on Fox with the President I can't recall a time when a president was so defensive and ineffective when he was pressed on issues about what was in a bill that will become the hallmark of his presidency. Obama could not answer many of the questions (such as the myth that there will be Medicare savings) and that does not bode well for him as the most contentious election season in recent memeory looms. Finally a major news anchor took off the gloves and pressed the president for answers, even interrupting him when the president attempted to fillibuster the process. Transcript here.

Of the many fascinating aspects of the debate about ObamaCare probably the most informative point is that people are seeing that this Presidency is standing on feet of clay. Barack Obama cannot and will not benefit from a vigorous election season that focuses on specific issues. Ironically, he will remain in office as his party loses majorities perhaps in both the House and Senate.

UPDATE:

Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Media, Nancy Pelosi, Politicians, Politics
Tags: Obama On Fox, ObamaCare

From Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

Any freakin' questions?

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Constitutional Issues

This, from NewsBusters, is... well... hope and change to believe in:

The transcript follows:

CAFFERTY: Just when you think you've seen it all in Washington, along comes something like this. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it- simply unbelievable. Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill, and then that vote would signify that lawmakers- quote, 'deem' the health care bill to be passed.

Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect House Democrats, who are all running for reelection in November, from having to make a tough vote up or down on health care reform. Pelosi says of this process- quote, 'I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill,' unquote. In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word. The Senate bill, of course, contains many provisions that are unpopular among some House Democrats, including language on abortion funding and taxes on high-cost so-called Cadillac insurance plans.

This tactic has been used in the past, but never- never for something as big and important as the $900 billion health care reform bill- never. Republicans are jumping all over this, rightfully so. They're painting it as a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility, which is exactly what it is. Some even suggest it's unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, President Obama's campaigning relentlessly, calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform- quote, 'I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing,' unquote. Well, the irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives, will it?

Here's the question: should Nancy Pelosi be allowed to push health care reform through the House without a vote? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog. Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER (off-camera): We're earning a lot about reconciliation, about 'deeming' bills passed into law. We're getting a little civics lesson out there, aren't we, Jack?

CAFFERTY: We're learning a lot more about lack of political guts.

BLITZER: Yeah, but you and I know that's been around for a while, right?

CAFFERTY: Not quite in this obnoxious form or noxious form. This reeks!

BLITZER: Jack Cafferty- telling it the way it is. Jack, thank you.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (93) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Health Care

You and I know this... but it's still good to publish the fact, especially when that fact is being trumpted by someone who may not necessarily be viewed as one of us heretical skeptics.

This particular someone is Judith Curry, who heads the Georgia Tech school of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences:

Where do you come down on the whole subject of uncertainty in the climate science?
I'm very concerned about the way uncertainty is being treated. The IPCC [the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a shortcut on the actual scientific uncertainty analysis on a lot of the issues, particularly the temperature records.

Don't individual studies do uncertainty analysis?
Not as much as they should. It's a weakness. When you have two data sets that disagree, often nobody digs in to figure out all the different sources of uncertainty in the different analysis. Once you do that, you can identify mistakes or determine how significant a certain data set is.

Is this a case of politics getting in the way of science?
No. It's sloppiness. It's just how our field has evolved. One of the things that McIntyre and McKitrick pointed out was that a lot of the statistical methods used in our field are sloppy. We have trends for which we don't even give a confidence interval. The IPCC concluded that most of the warming of the latter 20th century was very likely caused by humans. Well, as far as I know, that conclusion was mostly a negotiation, in terms of calling it "likely" or "very likely." Exactly what does "most" mean? What percentage of the warming are we actually talking about? More than 50 percent? A number greater than 50 percent?

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn't done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes. The IPCC itself doesn't recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it's sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That's who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda--Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that--so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That's caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It's not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report.

This is what Al Gore and other bonafide and certified liars are calling settled science.

Clearly, what it is instead is settled bullsh*t.

Pass the word.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Asshats, Global Warming

Let's be realistic.

The Health Care bill is going to pass.

Just as the passage of the stimulus bill proved, wobbly Democrats pretending to hold out for "legitimate concerns" means they are either waiting to be bought off, or they really have no moral fortitude. Their last minute hold outs are just political posturing done in hopes that it will somehow show their constituents they possess some fake party independence.

While tempting goodies can't be added onto this bill to buy votes needed for passage by the President's dead-line of March 18th, they can be promised oodles of treats in separate bills afterward if they vote for this one.

And if past history is any guide, this will happen.

Upon winning passage of this dirty legislation, the Democrats, including President Obama, will get to exhibit a public feeling of satisfaction. Smiling Democrats, back-slapping deviants, slogan-covered backdrops, and speeches filled with rhetoric touting this as a victory for the American people, will be on display for an all-too-willing media ready to provide Democrats with much needed cover and public image rehabilitation.

Though this will be a technical win for Democrats, it will have been obtained at their own peril. Polling consistently shows that the majority of the American people are adamantly opposed to this bill, no matter who the Democrats try to paint as the boogie-man. Thus, it will be a feeling of uneasy satisfaction. One where the use of heavy-handed trickery in passing this unwanted bill will overshadow any warm feelings of accomplishment, and present itself as the largest obstacle to their reelection.

The Democrats have no morals concerning the use of Reconciliation to push through such a bill of monumental proportions. By design, this bill will not become effective until 2014. That's not just some arbitrary timeline which was picked to sound good. It accomplishes two objectives. First, it gives four years after the passage of the bill to let the public outrage dissipate, and give the purveyors of this monstrosity time to say, "See, your coverage has not changed. Nothing bad has happened and all the nay-sayers were a bunch of partisan chicken-littles who just didn't want this administration to succeed in passing Health Reform." That said, when 2014 hits, and it comes time for this plan to be imposed on us all, the full effect will be felt. Their hope is that, no matter who may be in charge, nothing can be done about it. Their goal in the next four years is to weave and intertwine this behemoth into the fabric of our institutions with the hope that, once in place, it cannot be ripped out. The bureaucracies which will be created by this bill will be so entrenched within the existing health care system, that removing and altering them will, as they intended, be near impossible without ruining the system at large.

The arrogance displayed by the Democrats through all of this will be their undoing.

This is not the same electorate as years passed, where passive ignorance on the part of the voter was a politician's best friend.

The vociferous public condemnation of this bill, the rise of a loud and powerful grass-roots "Tea Party" movement, and the continuing, growing strength of the "new media" will not allow the actions of these power-drunk, self-important political creatures to fade into the past.

Its a new time. With a new type of voter. One who has become engaged, informed, and sickened by what they have seen.

And they are eagerly counting the days to November.

The Democrats may win this battle, but they will lose the war.

Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Big government, Congress, Health Care

Nearly a year ago, The New York Times published a piece they titled "A Move Back To Due Process" that led with this opening statement:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has served the cause of justice by reversing a noxious last-minute order by the Bush administration...

Granted, the cause there was immigration... nevertheless... I think you get The Gray Lady's drift...

Yesterday, Mr. Due Process had this to say:

Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Sigh.

What in hell is the point of trying terrorists in civil court when the man responsible for that decision is saying things like that?  If Osama Bin Laden is to be captured dead-or-dead... then why not let the military do its job and try these terrorists (or kill them outright) in the first place?

And where in hell are those who were so quick to charge Bush with every civil liberties breach? 

This whole thing has become a comedy...  actually, more like a tragedy.

We need grown-ups to lead us... not clowns... and Eric Holder is a clown.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Dumbasses, War On Terror

Locutisprime sends us the following in email:

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California  has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.

The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism.  Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.  A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.

Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years.  It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
  
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

That's settled science right there.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Congress, Humor, Nancy Pelosi

Not to mention The Simpsons. And Ghostbusters for that matter. I still crack up just thinking about the giddy look on Dr. Venkman's face as he's about to administer an electric shock to that kid even after he guessed the card right. The aforementioned MwC involved Al and Peggy vs. Steve and Marcy on a game show to win prizes by inflicting pain on your spouse. A little different in the execution, but the premise is basically the same - someone is getting an electric shock for money.

Yet another tried and true formula for comedy turned into an abomination by the French.

PARIS (AFP) - Game show contestants turn torturers in a new psychological experiment for French television, zapping a man with electricity until he cries for mercy -- then zapping him again until he seems to drop dead.
...
The game: posing questions to another "player" and punishing him with up to 460 volts of electricity when he gets them wrong -- even until his cries of "Let me go!" fall silent and he appears to have died.

Not knowing that the screaming victim is really an actor, the apparently reluctant contestants yield to the orders of the presenter and chants of "Punishment!" from a studio audience who also believed the game was real.
...
One contestant interviewed afterwards said she went along with the torture despite knowing that her own grandparents were Jews who had been persecuted by the Nazis.

"Since I was a little girl, I have always asked myself why they (the Nazis) did it. How could they obey such orders? And there I was, obeying them myself," said Sophie, quoted in a book by the film makers.
...
The experiment was modelled on an infamous study at Yale University in the 1960s, which used similar methods to examine how obedient citizens could come to take part in mass murder.

Some observers were sceptical of the manipulative way the participants were handled.

Jacques Semelin, a psychologist and historian who studies genocide and totalitarianism, pointed out that the participants were made to sign a contract obliging them to obey the presenter's instructions.

Must see TV, especially if they wired the "victim" to give off little puffs of smoke and smell of bacon frying at high voltage levels.

But we can't ignore the fact they signed a contract obliging them to obey the presenter's instructions. Pretty heavy stuff when you're choosing between "torturing" another human or walking away from a new washer/dryer and week-long all-expenses-paid stay at some tropical paradise. Not at all like a man who's taken an oath to protect the United States forced to make difficult decisions about how much discomfort is permissible when trying to extract information from high-ranking terrorists rolled up abroad.

If you're going to try Bush administration lawyers for their legal opinions on enhanced interrogations then shouldn't these would-be killers be tried? Interesting stuff to think about. My mind was wandering a bit this weekend while I was pulling the engine out of my old pickup to prep her for the new one. After dragging my butt inside and hosing off, I plopped down and just happened to catch a couple of totally unrelated flicks that oddly converged on a recurring theme. Said theme also has relevance to the ongoing charade by Democrats in Washington. The films were Jaws and Back to School. The common theme is the pompous, cultured elitist.

Matt Hooper is the least sympathetic character in Jaws. Hell, in the book he bangs Brodie's old lady and gets his comeuppance from the shark. When I was a kid, I read the book before I saw the movie and was totally bummed Hooper didn't get it. He's just that much of a dick. When they remake Jaws - and God knows they eventually will - Hooper will drive a Prius and be an insufferable greenie to boot.

In fact, if Hooper had been tactful he probably would have saved at least one life. Having never worked a day in his life (Me personally or the whole family?), he chooses confrontation with a mayor who has to balance the needs of his constituents against a never-before-seen threat. Dammit, he knows what's best for everyone. Who the hell is Matt Hooper anyway? "The guy from the oceanographic institute" Hey, Amity called and they think there's a shark or something. What should we do? Send Hooper. Doesn't his family have a summer home near Amity? He's probably got an extra boat up there anyway. Christ, it'll be nice to dissect a squid without him standing around telling how I'm doing it wrong.

Nobody got Hooper's goat like Quint though. Maybe he went a little Ahab at the end, but Quint knew the score. If only they'd had a bigger boat.

Back to School features 60-something self-made millionaire Rodney Dangerfield pitted against a snooty business school professor when he enrolls in college. Basically Rodney doing his standup bit to a thinly veneered plot. The only reason people like you have a place to teach is because people like me donate buildings. Right, so the best scene is Rodney in snooty's class as he discusses the semester's project - setting up and operating a business. Just the sort of real-world, built-a-multi-million-dollar-corporation-from-scratch vs. humorless book learning exchange you'd expect.

The professor is cartoonishly erudite and stodgy. Rodney is Rodney. In the end, Rodney proves that a homely 65 year old multi-millionaire can, with relatively little effort, return to college and get laid while successfully completing one semester of freshman level core classes.

Which brings us to another man who has never worked a day in his life either. Well, hasn't worked for profit anyway. He's got plenty of book learning. He's even taught book learning. To lawyers, no less. Our Lecturer in Chief.

His pomposity and refusal to even consider opposing points of view turned what should have been a slam dunk health reform bill into what is shaping up to be a electoral whitewash regardless of whether the bill actually makes it to the Rose Garden. It might have been a better bill to boot. No, Obama's the visionary. Just let Harry and Nancy work out the nuts and bolts.

This is the guy with the superior intellect and temperament we were told about. What if he's not cool and brilliant, he's just another pompous dick? I guess on some level you've got to hand it to a guy who completely ignores any contrary argument in pursuit of their ideologically perfect solution. At another level we've got to be thankful Obama is such a snooty, unsympathetic jerk that he's actually making health reform less likely.

Kucinich is a nerd and Professor Snooty roughed him up during the Dem primary. Called him out in Ohio yesterday too. Be interesting to see what he's got to say tomorrow. He's got just the right mix of goofy and self-righteous to know for sure, but he strikes me as someone who wouldn't react favorably to being strong-armed or bought off. We'll see if the jerk theory is validated. Or just how much Kucinich is willing to give it to Americans for fun and prizes.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Democracy

It is being reported that President Obama will refuse to campaign for those voting "no" on Obamacare. This might just be the best strategy possible -- for those wanting to kill Obamacare. Okay, maybe not really. It sounds like he is refusing the fund raising kind of visits that make lots of dough for the candidate, but don't necessarily result in pictures of the candidate with the president. When I saw this headline on Drudge though, "Obama refuses to campaign for Dems voting NO on health care," my first thought was that if Republicans could convince Democrats that a "Yes" vote would result in a high profile presidential visit to their district we might be able to kill this thing in a hurry. Just putting it out there.

Permalink | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Health Care
Tags: obamacare

For years you could not stand those smug, holier-than-thou environmentalists who felt they corned the market on moral superiority. Well, consider yourself a good judge of character. The Daily Caller brings us the story:

When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to "green" type.

According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the "licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour", otherwise known as "moral balancing" or "compensatory ethics".

Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the "halo of green consumerism" are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. "Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours," they write.

You always knew that those environmentalists who sneered down their noses at you because you didn't put your recycled glass and plastic at the curb every week and drove an SUV instead of a Prius were like arrogant jerks. Now there's a study to prove it.

Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Environment, Global Warming, The Looney Left

A quick glance at Drudge today showed that at one time the top four Democrats ostensibly in control of the ObamaCare whip count message had four different messages.

Top FOUR Dem Leaders All Disagree...

BLOOMBERG: Pelosi Says Dems to Have Votes for Health Bill...

THE HILL: Hoyer Shoots Down Larson's Vote Count, Clyburn's Timeline...

THE HILL: Clyburn Says Health Vote Could Push Past Easter Holiday...

POLITICO: Larson Says Dems Have the Votes...

Obama refuses to campaign for Dems voting NO on healthcare...

The chaos in the Democratic caucus today has reached the level of a farce. On that last item, about the President refusing to campaign for Democrats voting no on healthcare, I can imagine the first thought to come to mind with many Democrats might be " Can I get that in writing?"

The last twenty four hours has been probably the most chaotic in recent Congressional history. The president leaves for Asia on Sunday and Robert Gibbs, that sage of the Condescension, promised that ObamaCare would be the law of the land on Sunday. I guess he will be sweating bullets alongside David "Make my day" Axelrod as Air Force One starts its engines. Where do you begin to describe the lunacy that has become Democratic policy during the week in which a sitting President tells an audience that his legislation will result in a 3,000% reduction in insurance payments by U S employers?

Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, Obama said that if his health care bill passes, American employers could wind up paying 3,000% less for their health insurance plans. Well, even 300% would be impressive.

But let's do the math: 100% percent of anything is all of it. If you pay 100% less, you don't pay anything at all. Ever go to a 100%-off sale? Probably not.

The only explanation is that in order to achieve the negative number that would result from a 3,000% reduction, insurers would have to pay businesses and individuals to take their insurance policies. Or someone would have to pay that money.

One of the things Obama's election is changing is the rules of mathematics. The rules of political lying are the same as they ever were.

President Potato(e) Head is finally reaching the limits of credulity, even among his most loyal kool aid drinkers. A skeptic might deem he is wagging the dog with his bellicose comments about Israeli settlements. But that would imply some element of forethought from this White House, which I deem there is no eveidence thereof.

Update:

However, all members of Congress should deem their jobs at risk if this Wall Street Journal survey is accurate:

Congress has managed to get its approval ratings back down to the pre-election level, with just 17% of voters saying they approve of the job Congress is doing, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out later today.

In fact, when it comes to Congress, many voters would like to start anew. Asked if they would "replace every single member of Congress, including your own representative" if they could, 50% said "yes" while 47% said "no."

The voters who supported the clean-slate approach largely didn't care much about whether the Democrats or Republicans ended up in the majority.

That Tea Party movement that was much maligned just a year ago seems to have made an impression on voters, or is it vice versa? Whatever, the phoney baloney jobs occupied by today's incumbents appear increasingly at risk.

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Barack Obama, Democrats, Harry Reid, Health Care, Nancy Pelosi, Politicians, Politics

I kid you not:

The many nations helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake that struck there have set up their own military compounds and fly their flags at the entrances.

France's tricolor, Britain's Union Jack and even Croatia's coat of arms flap in the breeze.

But the country whose contributions dwarf the rest of the world's -- the United States -- has no flag at its main installation near the Port-au-Prince airport.

The lack of the Stars and Stripes does not sit well with some veterans and servicemembers who say the U.S. government should be proud to fly the flag in Haiti, given the amount of money and manpower the U.S. is donating to help the country recover from the Jan. 12 quake.

The Obama administration says flying the flag could give Haiti the wrong idea.

"We are not here as an occupation force, but as an international partner committed to supporting the government of Haiti on the road to recovery," the U.S. government's Haiti Joint Information Center said in response to a query about the flag.

We are no longer governed by those who would consider themselves exclusively American.

We are governed by radicals.

And many of you voted for this.

Crossposted(*).

Permalink | Comments (61) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Asshats, Barack Obama