Obama Considers Civil War? Orders 1 Million Troops to Prepare?

Wow!

"Russian Military Analysts are reporting to Prime Minister Putin that US President Barack Obama has issued orders to his Northern Command’s (USNORTHCOM) top leader, US Air Force General Gene Renuart, to “begin immediately” increasing his military forces to 1 million troops by January 30, 2010, in what these reports warn is an expected outbreak of civil war within the United States before the end of winter.

According to these reports, Obama has had over these past weeks “numerous” meetings with his war council about how best to manage the expected implosion of his Nations banking system while at the same time attempting to keep the United States military hegemony over the World in what Russian Military Analysts state is a “last ditch gambit” whose success is “far from certain”.

Have no idea how accurate this is, but it's sure to fire up speculation over the coming days.

What the Huck? Huckabee not Responsible for Clemmon's Act

A lot of the anti-Huckabee crowd want to blame this on him for granting clemency in 1990.

 "Maurice Clemmons, the 37-year-old Tacoma man being sought for questioning in the killing this morning of four Lakewood police officers, has a long criminal record punctuated by violence, erratic behavior and concerns about his mental health.

 Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors. "This is the day I've been dreading for a long time," Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas' Pulaski County said tonight when informed that Clemmons was being sought for questioning in connection with the killings.

 Clemmons' criminal history includes at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington. The record also stands out for the number of times he has been released from custody despite questions about the danger he posed.

 Huckabee, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination last year, issued a statement tonight calling the slaying of the police officers "a horrible and tragic event." If Clemmons is found responsible, "it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State," Huckabee said.

 He added that Clemmons' release from prison had been reviewed and approved by the Arkansas parole board."

 Which is true. Therefore the first question should be how in the heck did that parole board come to that recommendation? Very rarely will any governor reject clemency on an individual that has had such approval.

Yet read on.

"Clemmons had been in jail in Pierce County for the past several months on a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child.

He was released from custody just six days ago, even though was staring at seven additional felony charges in Washington state.

Clemmons posted $15,000 with a Chehalis company called Jail Sucks Bail Bonds. The bondsman, in turn, put up $150,000, securing Clemmons' release on the pending child-rape charge."

While politically I'm not a fan of Huckebee, it's silly to blame him for the vile acts of this individual.  If we want to follow the cause and effect of that logic we should blame the judge in Pierce County that set a bond on Clemmons.

The fact is that our justice system has such breakdowns isn't surprising, and neither is taking this awful situation to take pot-shots at Huckabee.   There is lots of blame to go around but right now the families of four dead police officers grieve, and Clemmons is on the loose.

Let's pray for the families of those officers and for the capture of Clemmons, they'll be plenty of time for incriminations and "would've, should've" later.

UPDATE:  The Real McCain is following developments overnight as SWAT has Clemmon's house surrounded.

Iran Plans 10 More Uranium Plants

Via Fox.

 "TEHRAN, Iran — The Iranian government approved a plan Sunday to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion in defiance of U.N. demands it halt the program.

 The decision comes only two days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran, demanding it immediately stop building a newly revealed enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom and freeze all uranium enrichment activities.

 A Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building five uranium enrichment sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months.

 In Vienna, spokeswoman Gillian Tudor said the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have no comment. But the announcement is likely to stoke already high tensions between Iran and the West over its controversial nuclear activities.

 Iran has one industrial-scale uranium enrichment plant near Natanz, in central Iran. The IAEA said earlier this month that about 8,600 centrifuges had been set up in Natanz, but only about 4,000 were enriching uranium. The facility will eventually house 54,000 centrifuges.

 The newly revealed enrichment site, known as Fordo, is a small scale site that will house nearly 3,000 centrifuges. IRNA said the Cabinet ordered that the 10 new sites have a scale equal to Natanz's. In the enrichment process, uranium gas is spun in centrifuges to purify it. Enriched to a low degree, the result is fuel for a nuclear reactor — but highly enriched uranium can be used to build a warhead.

The United States and its allies accuse Iran of secretly seeking to develop a bomb, a claim denied by Iran, which says it seeks only to generate electricity."

 


Well now.  Just this week Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh welcomed Obama's efforts to engage Iran without preconditions.  He had hoped that Obama's stance would end Iran's quest for nuclear enrichment.    This would appear to be yet another monumental failure of Obama's foreign policy initiative.

Oh well.

Bush Lost Bin Laden?

Old news.

 "Osama Bin Laden was within military reach when the Bush administration allowed him to disappear into the mountains of Afghanistan rather than pursue him with a massive military force, a new Senate report says.

 The report asserts that the failure to get the terrorist leader when he was at his most vulnerable in December 2001 - three months after the 9/11 attacks - led to today's reinvigorated insurgency in Afghanistan.

 Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts senator and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, requested the report, which came as President Obama prepares to send as many as 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Kerry has long argued the Bush administration botched an opportunity to capture the Al Qaeda leader and his top deputies when they were holed up in the forbidding mountainous area of Tora Bora.

 The report calls then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks, the top military commander at the time, to the carpet and asserts the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault on Bin Laden with several thousand troops. Instead, fewer than 100 commandoes, working with Afghan militias, tried to capitalize on air strikes and track down the ragged band of terrorists."

Again, old news.

 Interestingly enough, "adequate troops" is one of Obama's excuses for delaying his "decision" on how many more to send. (Ed.  Just in case it's missed, Obama is scheduling a "light deployment" exactly what this 'report' accuses Bush of doing).

 Didn't need a "Senate Report", most of this was known a long time ago, which makes Kerry an opportunistic idiot.   He's been talking up the "Obama lost in Tora Bora" crap since the 2004 election, and this "staffer report" is as transparent as his marriage to Teresa.

Just ahead of Obama's "What I'm going to do about Afghanistan" speech this week,  he's giving Obama an opportunity to bash Bush once more.    Here's the script.  We didn't get Bin Laden, thus, Al Qaeda was able to reconstitute, thus we have a problem in Afghanistan that only - of course - Obama can fix!

Brilliant!  Except that it's not exactly so.

 (Ed. But he did go to the Vietnam for four months!)

 Nevertheless there would have been no "missed chance" in 2001, if there wouldn't have been many more missed chances in the 10 years before.

So without further ado, here's a reposting.

 "June 1995: The CIA concluded that Osama bin Laden authorized the failed assassination attempt on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The CIA also concluded that Hassan al-Turabi, Sudan's leader, knew where bin Laden was living and aided the plot. The United States weighed options for attacking bin Laden and al-Turabi's headquarters in Sudan's capital, but retaliation plans were ultimately rejected - as tantamount to staging war with Sudan.

February 1996 to October 1998: The United States targeted bin Laden's satellite phone calls. After a U.S. missile strike against bin Laden's camps on Aug. 20, 1998, however, an official leaked that the United States could track his movements through the use of the phone - nixing this key intelligence coup.

 March to May 1996: Varying unverified reports indicated that bin Laden's sanctuary, Sudan, offered to hand over bin Laden directly to the United States, but U.S. officials decided not to take him because there was not enough evidence at the time to charge him with a crime. (The 9/11 Commission later concluded that there was no evidence that Sudan offered bin Laden directly to the United States, but it does find substantiation that Saudi Arabia was discussed as an option.)   Note a Glowing issue with the 9/11 Omission Commission.   Clinton admitted to turning down the offer.

March 1996 to April 1996: Eager to get from beneath sanctions, Sudan advised the United States that it had a vast intelligence database on bin Laden and more than 200 leading members of his al-Qaida terrorist network. Although FBI officials wanted to parley with the Sudanese and get their files, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pressed to continue to box the country in economically. No deal was made for the files.

 May 1996: When Sudan finally expelled bin Laden, the terror chieftain left in the company of many other key al-Qaida members, carrying cash. Flying to Afghanistan in a transport plane with his entourage, he made the trip unscathed - even though the United States reportedly knew of the particulars of the journey.

June 1996 to October 2001: Al-Qaida took control of Ariana Airlines, which transported illegal drugs and arms and became the main conduit of militants traveling incognito as airline employees. The United States failed to act swiftly against the airline.

1997: Although the CIA ramped up its Afghanistan operations and recruited some Taliban military leaders, none gets close to bin Laden.

February 1998: The United States rejected yet another offer of the Sudanese al-Qaida files. Although the FBI remained eager to accept the offer, the official posture was that Sudan's offers were not credible - owing to Sudanese leader al-Turabi's ideologically bond with bin Laden.

May 1998: The United States developed a plan to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan, using a CIA-owned aircraft that would swoop in from a nearby country, set down on a remote landing strip, and haul him aboard. Involved in the complex scenario that evolved over time was a team of Afghan informants who would kidnap bin Laden from his Tarnak Farm complex. CIA chief George Tenet, however, nixed the operation on grounds that, in his judgment, the impromptu Afghan allies were unreliable.

August 1998: After the al-Qaida bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, President Clinton, in writing, authorized the CIA to arrange the capture of bin Laden, using force. Despite a lot of preliminary groundwork by the CIA, the plan never unfolded - reportedly owing to inadequate intelligence.

August 1998 to 2000: After the embassy bombings, the United States placed two submarines on station - likely in the Indian Ocean. They were poised to launch cruise missiles at al-Qaida targets, including bin Laden. However, by the time the drone Predator spy plane soared over Afghanistan in late 2000 and famously pinpointed bin Laden on the ground, the submarines had been redeployed elsewhere. Bin Laden escaped unscathed - since the Predator model used at that time was not armed with a missile.

August 1998: The United States fired about 60 missiles at various al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, as well as a dozen missiles at a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan. No key al-Qaida cadre was killed.

December 1998: The United States once again pinpointed bin Laden in Afghanistan. Although missiles were readied, the strike was called off over fears of collateral damage.

February 1999: Intelligence put bin Laden at a desert hunting camp in Afghanistan. Cruise missiles are prepped, but royals from the United Arab Emirates are present and the strike is called off.

May 1999: Bin Laden was reportedly pinpointed again. Tenet nixed attack owing to usual concerns about collateral damage.

October 1999: A reportedly joint Pakistani Interservices Intelligence/U.S. commando strike to kill bin Laden is waylaid when Gen. Pervez Musharraf took over Pakistan in a coup and subsequently decided to abort the operation."

Fact is that opportunities to capture/kill Bin Laden were many before 9/11 and Tora Bora.   Sure had we had sufficient troops to go after him there we might have been successful.  might, had he even been there, and that in itself is a little fact that

Climategate - Scientist Dumped Data To Hide Truth that Global Warming Wasn't Taking Place

As in any crime, the getting rid of the evidence amounts to an admission of guilt.

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled.

That is now impossible."

Yeah.

The MacRanger Show is ON THE AIR!

Join me NOW at 12pm EST for The MacRanger Show on Blog Talk Radio!  Call in 646-652-4913 and the chat room is wide open!  See you there!

Where is the Hate Crime Charge in the Gladney Beating?

Charges have finally been filed, via Gateway Pundit.

"ST. LOUIS COUNTY • Six people arrested in August outside a raucous town hall meeting in south St. Louis County have been charged with misdemeanor ordinance violations. The six, including a Post-Dispatch reporter, had attended a demonstration outside an Aug. 6 forum called by U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, at Bernard Middle School in Mehlville to discuss health care reform.

The charges were filed Tuesday by the St. Louis County counselor’s office, which prosecutes misdemeanor ordinance violations in unincorporated areas. All are to appear in court Jan. 21. The maximum penalty upon conviction would be one year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Some bloggers have been writing for months about the lag between the arrests at the politically-charged event and the filing of charges.

County Counselor Patricia Redington insisted it had nothing to do with politics, influence or pressure from any official. "These charges are like the 90,000 other charges we file each year," she said.

GP notes:

"They were charged with “misdemeanor” violations for smashing a black man on the cement and calling him n*****."

So where is the Hate Crime charge. Gadney wasn't participating in the townhall meeting, he was selling items. Yet he was attacked by white men and he is black, so - where are the charges that this was possibly racially motivated?




 

Climate-Gate Grows

Via Watts Up with That:

 "The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there. The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century.

But Does it?

Watts UP notes:

"Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850. Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on? Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever! Have the readings in the official NIWA graph been adjusted?

Make no mistake that this is a huge scandal and is unraveling faster than Obama's plan for the economy.  Again the question is whether or not lawsuits will be filed by those who have been harmed by this junked and now officially debunked science.

This is a good post about about the monetary scam of Global Warming and who stands to gain by the nearly 45 trillion dollar windfall over the next few years.

"Some more pieces of the “How Al Gore is Going to Become Amazingly Wealthy by Selling Climate Hysteria” puzzle came together Friday when the Silicon Valley venture capital firm he’s now a part of announced a $500 million investment in green technologies.

Making matters more delicious, the firm already has investments in many of the same companies Gore admitted in March he has a stake in.

To begin untangling this web, let’s first take a gander at what was reported Friday by the San Francisco Chronicle (emphasis added): Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers said Thursday it will invest $500 million in green technology companies that have passed their earliest stages of growth and are maturing.

The venture capital firm also will invest in green-tech startup companies as part of another investment fund it introduced Thursday, which will invest $700 million over the next three years in startups.

For those that have forgotten, this is the same VC group Gore joined last November as reported by NewsBusters.

Here’s where the plot thickens. The KPCB website identified the following companies this group has already invested in: Altarock Energy Inc, Altra Biofuels, Amyris Biotechnologies, Ausra, Bloom Energy, GreatPoint Energy, Mascoma Corporation, and Miasole."

Of course at the helm is Al Gore who may well become the new Maddof driving the largest scam in history.

Damn Right I Punched the Dirtbag in the Nose!

Now for your "Who gives a flying ...."

"Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004.

And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com... . Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers. Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement. Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation."

A bloody lip?  Is that all?  I would like to know who is the numb-nut who let this investigation go forward.

 In 1979 I caught a North Korean Regular climbing out of a tunnel. After asking him please to come with me back to the CP, he refused and I shot the idiot.   Ask me if anyone cared then, and more important does anyone care now.  I was cleared, because I did my job.   God forbid the men and women begin to get trivial trials for doing their job.


 Ask me if anyone cared then, and more important does anyone care now.

After Twiddling His Thumbs for 10 Months - Obama Makes a Decision on Afghanistan

Well what do you know, the commander and delay has made a decision which has been a no-brainer all along.

"WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he's called "a war of necessity" in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn't originate in the White House.

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.

As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops."

This of course is less than what commanders on the ground wanted and what McChrystal asked for. While it's welcome and about time, one would think why take all the time to arrive at the obvious conclusion? Witness this:

"The administration's plan contains "off-ramps," points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or "begin looking very quickly at exiting" the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said. "We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that's it," the U.S. defense official said. It's "not just how we get people there, but what's the strategy for getting them out," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday."

Six months is hardly enough and Obama knows it. He's trying to walk the line of "war hawk" and "dove" and yet not get any bird poop on him.

Special Prosecutor Needed for Americorps Firing

Byron York who has done the job the MSM won't do, on the illegal firing of Americorps IG Gerald Walpin has found.

 "Just hours after Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa released a report Friday on their investigation into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin, the Obama White House gave the lawmakers a trove of new, previously-withheld documents on the affair. 

It was a twist on the now-familiar White House late-Friday release of bad news; this time, the new evidence was put out not only at the start of a weekend but also hours too late for inclusion in the report. The new documents support the Republican investigators' conclusion that the White House's explanation for Walpin's dismissal -- that it came after the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps, unanimously decided that Walpin must go -- was in fact a public story cobbled together after Walpin was fired, not before. 

 Walpin was axed on the evening of June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, who told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired. 

 The next day, congressional Republicans, led by Grassley, objected, charging that Walpin's dismissal violated a recently-passed law requiring the president to give Congress 30 days' notice before dismissing an inspector general. 

 Pressed for the reason Walpin was fired, Eisen told House and Senate aides that the White House conducted an "extensive review" of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to dismiss him. According to the new report, Eisen told Congress that "his investigation into the merits of removing Gerald Walpin involved contacting members of the Corporation for National and Community Service [CNCS] board to confirm the existence of a 'consensus' in favor of removal." 

But Republican investigators later discovered that during that "extensive review," the White House did not even seek the views of the corporation's board -- the very people whose "consensus" purportedly led to Walpin's firing."

This firing was in fact illegal and should be followed up with and properly investigated.   While Grassley has investigated this and gotten to the truth, I've contacted ranking member of the SJC, Senator Jeff Sessions to call for hearing and a Special Prosecutor to explore criminal intent.  

Contact Senator Sessions here.

Good News We're Defeating Obamacare

Just in case you might miss it, we're winning the fight against Obamacare, against socialism.  Can you smell it?   It's the smell of victory.

They recognize it too.   Howard (The Scream) Dean:

"One of the leading progressive champions of health care reform is pessimistic about the state of the debate in the Senate, saying he sees virtually no path to passing strong legislation and predicting potential congressional losses for Democrats as a consequence.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post on Monday that Senate Democratic leadership was "in deep trouble" on health care, even after Majority Leader Harry Reid cobbled together over the weekend the 60 votes needed to get legislation to the floor. The problem was as much about politics as policy.

"I think if you passed the Senate bill tomorrow it would be OK. But then the problem is they don't have any defense for their members in 2010," Dean said, noting that the public option would not become operational until 2014. "On the other hand, if they drop the public option [to placate moderate members], I think they lose seats." "So this is really tough. I didn't anticipate being in this position. I thought it would pass.

Maybe Harry has some magic up his sleeve. But I don't see how he gets those four votes [Sens. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.)] without compromising the bill," Dean concluded."

Translation? We won folks.   We can say it, we won the battle to stop Obamacare from passing.

 There is no way that a public option - first step to socialization of medicine - is happening in America any time soon, and that's GOOD NEWS. Thanks the thousands of Americans who stood up to the socialists who have invaded our government and said, not "No", but "Hell No!".

Oh sure they'll get something through, next year and it will be "reform", but it won't contain a public option or taxpayer funded abortion, both are effectually dead in the water.    What will pass will been nothing in comparison to what was proposed and that's a win for us, a sound defeat for socialist Democrats.

No, the fight isn't completely over, we need to keep up the marches, the protests, the letters, phone calls, emails and faxes.   You don't stand over your enemy when you've vanquished him, you cut off his head to make sure he doesn't get back up.   We need to keep up the fight until every last ounce of Pelosi/Reid is out of Washington for good, and if not gone effectually neutralized.

2010 is the beginning of the end of socialist rule in our country as we begin the swing back to conservative governance.     The signs are there that we will have a very good 2010 election and gain much back of what we lost.  2012 is looking brighter everyday.  American's have realized their mistake,  the polls have shown us that.

I was right of course in saying that Barack Obama will become anathema to Democrats as his sinking poll numbers - unprecedented in history - just over one year in office will cause Dems to shrink back, fearing even being slightly influenced by his unpopularity.

By 2010 those numbers will be in the sub 30s-40s and by all accounts Obama will be as popular as Marion Barry without the crack.  He'll be alone, no one - except of course Axlerod and teleprompter.

It's good for now though to realize that Americans rose to the occasion and corrected this wrong wrought  in the fall of 2008, and by the fall of next year the correction will be completed.

Savor the moment, we're winning, and in the end we will win.

Getting "Purity" Right

Yet another "moderate" whines:

"Those calling for ideological purity have a short memory.

Helms was repeatedly angry and frustrated at President Ronald Reagan, who would provide only lip service to such issues as abortion and school prayer.

And it was Reagan who signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

 This is actually an old debate.

During the 1970s and 1980s, the state Republican Party was often torn by factional warfare between Helms-style conservatives and more traditional Republicans. I was present in 1988 at a GOP convention in Franklin County in which a riot broke out, with multiple fistfights.

 The Republican Party grew rapidly in the '60s, '70s and '80s in North Carolina by courting conservative Democrats. But North Carolina has maintained the strongest Democratic Party in the South during the past decade by siphoning off moderate Starbucks Republicans.

As conservative British Prime Minister HaroldMcMillan (1957-63) once noted: "A successful party of the right must continue to recruit from the center and even from the left center. Once it begins to shrink into itself like a snail, it will be doomed."

 Bathtub water.  More revisionist history from yet another "we gots to please everyone to be relevant" sour puss.  The Republican Party grew under Reagan because it touted conservative principles and that alone won the hearts and minds of Americans.

Americans I might remind you that are by and large conservative and respond appropriately when leaders exhibit conservative qualities.   Reagan won in 1980 and 1984 by speaking conservative principles that conservative America could respond to.

Let's not beat about the bush.  Moderates bring nothing to the party except compromise as we have seen with the healthcare debate, and during the Bush years with judges, the war, etc.   They compromise because they have no core, hence the meaning of their name.

When you hear a moderate talk about "purity" it's because they've been found out.  What they want is compromise.  Not on the other side mind you, just us.  Not compromise from liberalism, but from conservatives.

Moderates should rename themselves the "Co-Dependent Party", for they are always about pleasing the wrong side and excusing and blaming themselves for the wrong in others.

The New York Times Prepares the Defense of Hasan

But of course you could expect nothing less from the rag that divulges our secrets for kicks.

 This smuck, Robert Wright, asks "Who created Major Hasan?"

 "IN the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre, the verdict has come in. The liberal news media have been found guilty — by the conservative news media — of coddling Major Hasan’s religion, Islam. Liberals, according to the columnist Charles Krauthammer, wanted to medicalize Major Hasan’s crime — call it an act of insanity rather than of terrorism.

They worked overtime, Mr. Krauthammer said on Fox News, to “avoid any implication that there was any connection between his Islamist beliefs ... and his actions.” The columnist Jonah Goldberg agrees. Admit it, he wrote in The Los Angeles Times, Major Hasan is “a Muslim fanatic, motivated by other Muslim fanatics.”

 The good news for Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Goldberg is that there is truth in their indictment. The bad news is that their case against the left-wing news media is the case against right-wing foreign policy. Seeing the Fort Hood shooting as an act of Islamist terrorism is the first step toward seeing how misguided a hawkish approach to fighting terrorism has been.

 The American right and left reacted to 9/11 differently. Their respective responses were, to oversimplify a bit: “kill the terrorists” and “kill the terrorism meme.” Conservatives backed war in Iraq, and they’re now backing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

Liberals (at least, dovish liberals) have warned in both cases that killing terrorists is counterproductive if in the process you create even more terrorists; the object of the game isn’t to wipe out every last Islamist radical but rather to contain the virus of Islamist radicalism

 One reason killing terrorists can spread terrorism is that various technologies — notably the Internet and increasingly pervasive video — help emotionally powerful messages reach receptive audiences. When American wars kill lots of Muslims, inevitably including some civilians, incendiary images magically find their way to the people who will be most inflamed by them.

 This calls into question our nearly obsessive focus on Al Qaeda — the deployment of whole armies to uproot the organization and to finally harpoon America’s white whale, Osama bin Laden. If you’re a Muslim teetering toward radicalism and you have a modem, it doesn’t take Mr. bin Laden to push you over the edge.

All it takes is selected battlefield footage and a little ad hoc encouragement: a jihadist chat group here, a radical imam there — whether in your local mosque or on a Web site in your local computer. This, at least, is the view from the left. Exhibit A in this argument is Nidal Hasan. By all accounts he was pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He also drew inspiration from a radical imam, Anwar al-Awlaki. Notably, it had been eight years since Major Hasan actually saw Mr. Awlaki, who moved from America to Yemen after 9/11.

And  for most of those years the two men don’t seem to have communicated at all. But as Major Hasan got more radicalized by two American wars and God knows what else, the Internet made it easy to reconnect via e-mail. The Fort Hood shooting, then, is an example of Islamist terrorism being spread partly by the war on terrorism — or, actually, by two wars on terrorism, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Fort Hood is the biggest data point we have — the most lethal Islamist terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. It’s only one piece of evidence, but it’s a salient piece, and it supports the liberal, not the conservative, war-on-terrorism paradigm.

When the argument is framed like this, don’t be surprised if conservatives, having insisted that we not medicalize Major Hasan’s crime by calling him crazy, start underscoring his craziness.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they’ll note, aren’t wars against Islam or against Muslims; Major Hasan must have been deluded to think that they are! Surely we can’t give veto power over our foreign policy to a crazy ... well, not crazy, but, you know, not-entirely-sane person like Major Hasan. It’s true that Major Hasan was unbalanced and alienated — and, by my lights, crazy. But what kind of people did conservatives think were susceptible to the terrorism meme? Like all viruses, terrorism infects people with low resistance.

And surely Major Hasan isn’t the only American Muslim who, for reasons of personal history, has become unbalanced and thus vulnerable. Any religious or ethnic group includes people like that, and the post-9/11 environment hasn’t made it easier for American Muslims to keep their balance. That’s why the hawkish war-on-terrorism strategy — a global anti-jihad that creates nonstop imagery of Americans killing Muslims — is so dubious."

Much of this requires no comment. because typical of the tripe we've heard from the left over the last eight years.

By their reasoning it's not Hasan's fault you see. It's nasty American aggression and 'misunderstanding' of the terrorist and their "ways" who are at fault.

However one thing is glaring and that's the ignorance that Wright shows - or perhaps he knows full well - that the approach to terrorism up to 2008 keep this country free from attack, either from within or without.  Major Hasan's terrorist act represents the first time the US has been attacked since 9/11 and that on the watch of those with his views.

Thus we really could care less.  I'm sure the families of the victims at Fort Hood would agree.

Get ready because this is precisely how the media will cover the trial of Hasan as well as the 9/11 trials.

Misunderestimating The Palin Effect

Once again the media is missing the point.

 Especially with the influence and effect of Sarah Palin. Then again perhaps they do, thus they have gone after her as if - if they could - kill her off be rid of her, simply because of what she will mean in the years to come.

 Right now her book, "Going Rogue" is flying off bookshelves - 300,000 copies, far outselling that of Hillary, Obama or any other recent "media hero".

 The reason is evident. People across the US are connecting and have found someone who speaks and thinks as they do.

The rumblings of the populace are growing and as the marches this summer told us they are growing in number.  The majority isn't the socialist wing of the Democratic party, it's the majority of Americans who are conservative and who have had enough with government takeover and influence in their lives.

Palin represents the beginning of the revolution to come.   As millions of copies of her book go out and other conservatives overtake the airwaves to get more activist, we shouldn't have to endure the current scourge any longer than 2012.

Once again the media will underestimate the effect, and try - as they have unsuccessfully to demonize it.  Nevertheless it will succeed.

We are winning folks, but keep up the fight!

The Fight Begins

Byron York:

 "The extraordinary thing about the dramatic events surrounding the health care bill in the Senate is that there was any drama at all. Lawmakers were simply voting to begin debate on the Democratic version of health care reform. Just begin debate -- not end it, and not move on to a final vote.

 If Democrats, with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, had not been able to begin debate on the top Democratic policy priority in a generation -- well, that would have been a devastating turn of events, both for the party and for President Obama.

 And yet just starting debate proved difficult, and only on the last day did the 60th Democratic vote fall in place in favor of beginning the process. I asked a high-ranking Republican Senate source whether it was really that hard to get the Democratic votes together.

Could it have been a media-fed story, with reporters looking to inject some unwarranted drama into the proceedings? No, I was told. "It really was that hard for them to get to 60 just to proceed," the source said.

"Very telling." And judging by the statements of four moderate Democrats -- Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Nelson -- it will be far, far harder when the process comes to the really important vote, the one that would bring debate to a close and move on to an up-or-down vote on the Democrats' health care plan. On Saturday, all four of those Democrats publicly threatened to side with Republicans and kill the bill before it can move to a final vote, unless their concerns are met.

"If the bill remains where it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said. "I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

"My vote to move forward on this important debate should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end," said Sen. Mary Landrieu. And Sen. Ben Nelson said he will "oppose the second cloture motion -- needing 60 votes -- to end debate, and oppose the final bill" if major changes are not made."

So now the real battle begins.

As I said before Both Laudrieu and Lincoln can basically kiss their ample rear ends goodbye.

Pundits said that voting to proceed would be a "safe vote" and wouldn't hurt their political chances.  But that's nonsense.  Both are facing daunting odds in retaining their seats and both had receive the message from constituents that they were not to support this bill in any measure.

We know that Laudrieu was "paid off" and has other campaign corruption problems, and we've yet to find out what Lincoln received.  Nevertheless York is right that this vote was ridiculously weak for the Democrats, much like the squeaker in the House.

NOTHING is a done deal yet and we have a very good chance of derailing this mess before it gets any further.

But we'll have to get busy.  It's more than just emails and faxes - although that's important to.  It's about "getting in their face", and that means to get nasty.  NOTHING has ever been more important to fight about in this country.

We are witnessing the minority - that's the people who truly want government run health care - running over the majority - that's the people who don't.

We need to get that majority up and at 'em.   We need to keep this evil stalled at least through Summer of 2010.  By then the elections loom and we stand to gain 50+ seats and thus the power to finally nail the coffin on this power grab.

Orin Hatch - The War Cry - We Will NOT Let the Government Mandate Our Choice

Orin Hatch:

 "Mr. President, We are rapidly approaching perhaps one of the most important votes for each of us here in the United States Senate. 

This is bigger than us, our parties or our ideologies. This about the very future of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It is about your children and my children. It is about your grandchildren and my children. 

It is about giving our future generations the same opportunities and the same sense of pride. It is about every American life and every American business that will be subject to this 2,074-page edict from Washington. 

 I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. 

History and our future generations will judge us on this. Here are some numbers: 

· 0 – the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care. 

· 0 – the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term. 

 · 10.2 percent – our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.

 · 70 – total number of government programs authorized by the bill.

 · 1,697 – times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.

 · 2,074 – total pages in this bill. · 2010 – the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill

 · 2014 – the year when this bill actually starts most of the major provisions of this bill

 · $6.8 million – cost to taxpayers per word

 · $8 billion – the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.

 · $465 billion – Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.

 · $494 billion – total amount of new taxes in this bill · $2.5 trillion – the real cost of the bill

 · $12 trillion – our total national debt These numbers are facts.

 They are undisputable. 

 Let me finish by reading an excerpt from a letter from one of my fellow Utahans from Provo, who is worried just like me about what this bill will mean for our country: 

 “I am writing out of deep concern over the increasing expansion of government. I moved here from Germany 20 years ago.

 I love America because it is free – freer than Germany in that I have the freedom to choose, among other things, how I want to insure my family (we have six children). I’m all for affordable health insurance which requires affordable health care. I am self-employed and have been hit hard by the economy. 

 There is a good chance that we would actually benefit from [this bill]. Business has been so bad that we would qualify for free school lunches if we asked for it. But I don’t want more government handouts. I don’t want the government telling me what kind of insurance I need to have. 

I don’t want the government telling me what services I can receive when I need them. I don’t want them taking an ever greater part of my income to help finance government programs such as the ‘public option’ and the army of government employees it will take to administer such a program.

 I do not want more government. I want less. A lot less.” 

 Note to our liberal friends. This is a nice way of saying, "By the ballot box, or by force. We will NOT let this happen.  Give us liberty or give us death".

First Salvo: NRSC Moves Towards Replacing Lincoln

Lincoln's done in Arkansas:  Via the NRSC:

“Blanche Lincoln’s vote tonight is unequivocally a vote in favor of President Obama’s $2.5 trillion government-run health care plan. 

“Obviously the pressure from the left wing of her party finally got to Blanche Lincoln.  She not only reversed her previous statements that a government-run plan was too costly, but she completely ignored the increasing unemployment rate in her state and the growing national deficit when she announced that she will cast the 60^th vote in favor of President Obama’s costly health care plan tonight. 

“There’s no doubt that this vote will be a critical issue for Senator Lincoln as she embarks on her uphill re-election bid, and the people of Arkansas will have an opportunity to hold her accountable when they cast their ballots next November.”

Which is the case indeed.  Via Zogby:

"In an initial match-up of Lincoln and possible Republican candidate State Senator Gilbert Baker, the incumbent, Lincoln, holds a narrow 41-39 lead. Against another possible GOP contender, State Senator Kim Hendren, Lincoln holds a more substantial 45-29 lead. But when voters were asked how they would vote in a Lincoln-Baker race if Lincoln voted in favor of the healthcare legislation, the incumbent Democrat fell behind her possible GOP challenger 37-49. In all, 48% of likely Arkansas voters said they would be less likely to back Lincoln's re-election if she supports the healthcare bill with 38% saying they were much less likely to support her in that event."

 Now that her position is known it will be a lot easier to replace her. Regardless of how she votes on Obamacare from here on out, her "Yea" tonight just killed her chance at reelection.

Senate Democrat Giveaway - Reid has his 60 Votes, Guaranteeing Democrats Loose Elections in 2010, 2012

The American public won't be bullied.

 Given that the Democrats will commit political suicide tonight by voting to continue debate on healthcare, we now look ahead to 2010 and 2012, and ram down the throats of Americans a bill they don't want and have rejected;

 Given that even if Obama gets his wish at grabbing power over the nation's healthcare system, it won't go into affect until after he is politically dead and gone - 2012 by the accounting of recent poll numbers.

 By the way, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, are gone. They threw their chance of remaining in office away this afternoon.

 Makes no difference if they oppose the public option or not, they will simply not be reelected.

 Subsequently beginning in 2010 and 2012, with the return of Congress to the GOP - yes it's going to happen - we'll then have to decide how to reverse and extinguish this mess.

 But we will do it, indeed it's already being planned. 

How much will get reversed? Enough to make this - if indeed it survives - one of the least potent bills in American history.

Global Fraud Exposed - Al Gore Could be Sued

We know that by all accounts the so-called Global Warming theory is just that - a theory- and a debunked theory at that. Now it's been discovered that the theory was "cooked up" by scientists trying to create something out of nothing.

"If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet.

(Hat tip: Watts Up With That) When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential.

As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest: Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting: “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.)

But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as: Manipulation of evidence:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

"Tricks" "Hide" all words that indicate that something was being manipulated to make Global Warming more scientific that it was.
 But why?

 Simple, money, and LOTs of it.

 A University of Miami Researcher who studied Global Warming - and found it wanting - let me in on the secret a couple of years ago.

 When Al Gore began reinventing himself as the "Climate Guru", he contacted several universities and university funders to create network that would "win scientists" over to his side more or less by buying them off with university grants.

 It worked as university grant programs that studied the effects of GW received huge amounts of cash provided that what they learned confirmed what the GW community wanted. When that didn't happen funding was removed.

 It's a huge scam, but not illegal.

 Funding and endowments can be given for any reason.

 Nevertheless, university funding isn't the money trail that GW has greased. If "Climate Gate" grows and further exposes fraud those who preached it and profited from it could be sued for the damage they created. Think of the millions - billions - of dollars that has been wasted on "carbon credits" and mandated "Green" rules and laws.

 This is going to be fun.

Why Andrew Sullivan Makes Gay Ugly

Andrew Sullivan is not only a sad man who finds fun in slandering Down Syndrome Affected kids, and the moms that bore them, but he shows us just how ugly gay hatred of women can be.   Not only maniacal, but boorish and lame.

The Queen has taken a hiatus, evidently to farm 'Going Rogue' for a fresh batch of slander to come.

Yet most of us wish he would simply slide back into the slime bucket he crawled out of.

Couldn't be that lucky, could we?

Correction the Quinnipiac Poll - NOT the First Time Obama Slipped Below 50% Approval

Errr,...

 "President Barack Obama's job approval rating is 48 - 42 percent, the first time he has slipped below the 50 percent threshold nationally, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. "

 Incorrect.

 Rasmussen Reports has had Obama's approval at below 50 percent on 7 different occasions during the last month or two.

Additionally  Fox News in it's October 18th poll found Obama at sub 50 percent as well.

The Only "Standing" Obama has Improved is America's Vulnerability to Attack

Mr. "Bend Over":

"Beijing, China (CNN) -- A little more than a year after his election, President Obama said his administration has laid the groundwork for success on global and domestic matters. "I think that we've restored America's standing in the world, and that's confirmed by polls," he told CNN's Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China. "I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people -- maybe less than 40 percent of the people -- thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it's up to 75 percent." The president said that makes it easier for world leaders to cooperate with the United States, noting Chinese and Russia involvement in nuclear talks with Iran. Obama has visited 20 countries during his first year in office, more than any other U.S. president."

And he's "Bend Over" forwards, apologized, groveled in every one of them. No wonder they like him in anti-american countries - that most of these "polls" were taken. Unfortunately it's all hogwash. He might have made friends with despots, being not far from one himself, but in actuality his policies have done more to endanger America than not.

'Going Rogue' Flying off Bookshelves

First run gone!

"Sarah Palin’s memoir just hit the stands today but demand for “Going Rogue: An American Life” is so strong that HarperCollins Publishers is going back to press for an additional 100,000 run, bringing the total number of hard-covers in print to 1.6 million copies. a spokeswoman for Amazon.com Inc.’s Web site noted in an email that the title “is already one of our bestselling nonfiction books of 2009.” At 2:40 p.m., the book ranked No. 1 on Amazon’s list of best sellers, with six customer reviews and 393 customer discussions. Amazon is selling the book for $14.50, a 50% discount from its $28.99 retail price."

Sure to drive the sexist liberals clean over the edge.

Newsweak Uses Unauthorized Photo In Sexist Cover of Sarah Palin

You could expect no less from a magazine which has been caught in more fabricated stories than Dan Rather at a campside.

Here is the cover.

The photo was taken by Sarah for Runner's World, yet Newsweak's motivation is evident.

 In approaching several supermarket chains in the South Florida area I asked them to remove the magazine or face media coverage of why they would carry such an obvious sexist and inappropriate photo.   Today I will be following up with Barnes and Noble who also carries the magazine.

Contact them here to ask them to remove the issue from newsstands.

Two supermarket chains have responded that they will definitely look into it, another has agreed to remove it.

T-Mobile is a sponser of Newsweak, contact them here to ask if they approve of such sexism.

 Palin has said that she did not authorize the photo and a call into Runner's World hasn't been returned as of yet. I will ask them to demand that Newsweak remove the offensive cover.

Contact Runners World here.


UPDATE: Sarah responds via Facebook:

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness - a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context. - Sarah Palin"

The backlash is growing, several local media outlets are looking into covering the controversy.

Meanwhile, David Brody hit's it on the head.

"You've got to hand it to the folks at Newsweek. They have accomplished being biased and sexist at the same time. Quite a feat. This cover has got to be a new low right? They don't use a photo of Palin on the campaign trail. No instead they take the sexy Runners World photo. Yes she posed for it but don't tell me they didn't purposely use that photo to make a point? I predict this cover will become a bigger story over the next 24-48 hours and let's face it. This isn't JUST about media bias. This cover should be insulting to women politicians. Where's the sexy photo of Mitt Romney? Why not a picture of Tim Pawlenty with an unbuttoned shirt relaxing on a couch in the Twin Cities?

Shocked! C-BS Poll Finds Democrats Really Don't Like Palin

In another C-BS heavily weighted - Ok, ridiculously weighted Democrat poll found that 1 in 4 Democrats don't like Palin.

"She may be among the biggest names in politics at the moment, but former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is not exactly America's sweetheart. Just 23 percent of those surveyed in a new CBS News poll have a favorable view of the former Alaska governor. That matches her favorable rating in July, when Palin announced she was resigning from her job as governor. Thirty-eight percent, meanwhile, have an unfavorable view of Palin -- also roughly matching her July rating. Another 37 percent say they are undecided or haven't heard enough, despite the spotlight on Palin in recent days tied to the imminent publication of her memoir, "Going Rogue."

How did they get this number? Simple, use 307 to 212 Democrat vs. Republican dynamics. Note how C-BS has to gloss over the nearly 40 percent of undecideds which most other reputable pollsters would find significant. Note also how among Republicans - who actually vote for the Party, are hugely in favor of her, with 59 percent saying that she shares their values. On the other hand recent polls show us that the media shares just about none of the values of normal Americans and is trusted even less.

Why Sarah Palin Scares the Hell out of the Left

Because she can run in 2012 and if she does she'll most likely win. Of course the left and even willy-nillies on in the middle right know this. It's why they despise her so much.

 I doubt that modern history has seen such a virtual gang-rape of a female politician as we've seen of what has been done to Palin.

 Had this type of treatment occurred against Hillary Clinton or even God forbid Michelle Obama liberal women would have screamed from rooftops and demanded that all involved be castrated, lose their jobs, resign their positions, and be shot at sunrise and not necessarily in that order.

 Today Rasmussen found that 59% of GOP voters say Palin shares their values. That's greater than any other GOP candidate and NO other present candidate draws more crows and excites the base more than Palin.

 Which is why notoriously inaccurate polling such as ABC/WAPO, which use primarily Democratic weighted samples show Palin with more un-favorability than favorability. Except that their polling doesn't poll likely voters, which Rasmussen does and shows Palin with a 51 percent favorability vs. 44 percent the other way.

 Likely voters are all that counts. The liberal press knows this and continues will continue the onslaught. However it's doomed to backfire. American's typically don't like nastiness, and what they have seen since last August is simply sexist slander, one after another, and soon they will begin to reject it outright.

 Like it or not Sarah Palin is the front runner for 2012, I know that makes Rick Moran scream, and other to think the MacRanger delusional, but it's nontheless true. It's her's to lose.

 Another thing, if one more pundit talks about Palin's "lack of qualification", I'll personally kick their ass - I can do it too, try me. NO ONE was more unqualified for the Office of President than the current occupant, Barack Obama, and we can see just how true that is now.

 Sarah's qualifications are at least that of THE ONE, and even more. So let's stop that ridiculous and silly argument, it's getting old.

Tapper's "Friend" is Wrong about "The Bow"

Ok, let's dispense with the silliness of which the left will go to explain away Obama's bow.

 Witness.  ABC's Jake Tapper.

"An old friend -- an academic with expertise about the Japanese Empire, and in general a supporter of President Obama -- sends me the following note, relating to photographs of President Obama bowing to Emperor Akihito of Japan.

"This picture shows two things," my friend writes. "1) The 'right' is wrong about Obama's bow. "2) The 'left' is wrong about Obama's bow.

"His bow is neither (1) unprecedented nor (2) a sign of cultural understanding.

"At their 1971 meeting in Alaska, the first visit of a Japanese Emperor to America, President Nixon bowed and referred to Emperor Hirohito and his wife repeatedly as 'Your Imperial Majesties.'"

The picture of Nixon is one of "bowing", but leaning and yes the two are completely different.  God, if the left have to dig back nearly 40 years to find a "Republican example", you know they're desperate.

 I have no idea of who Tapper's "friend is", but I'll wager I have more experience in my little finger than he.

After all I've lived with Korean/Japanese wife for 26 years, and lived for many years in the orient, and I'm not only familiar the custom of bowing, I actually do it from time to time.  A bow can mean many things to the oriental way.  However Obama's bow was "to the earth" with his eyes looking downward.

My wife gasped when she saw it, "It's a signal of defeat" she continued.

Thus the  two events aren't even close in gaffes, and we can officially call this one of the greatest gaffes of Presidential history.

Case closed.

Gore Get's Heckled in Democratic Boca Raton

NOBODY is buying his shinola anymore, not even liberals in Boca Raton.

"BOCA RATON, FL -- Hundreds of people sat inside the Mizner Amphitheater, paying close attention to the presentation, but outside, it was a different story. A large group of protesters gathered just steps away from where former Vice President Al Gore was speaking. "If you follow the money, it tells you all you need to know about Al Gore he is making millions off all this energy stuff he is selling," said Meg Shannon, with the South Florida Tea Party. They made lots of noise and held up some very creative signs, showing their disapproval for Gore's views on global climate change. "Give me a break, can we cause global warming? I don't think so," said Shannon."

The reporting isn't exactly right.

 Just because you see "Tea Party" it doesn't mean "Republican". Fact is that the South Florida Tea Party is a mix of Republicans and Democrats and a few Independents mixed in. Boca Raton is nearly 90 percent Democratic.

It's NOT Protocol for the President to Bow to a Japanese Emperor

Another lame excuse from the White House on Obama's breech of protocol.

"A senior administration official said President Barack Obama was simply observing protocol when he bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko upon arriving at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on Saturday. “I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base,” the official said. “He observes protocol. But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan – who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan. It was a good, positive visit at an important time, because there’s a lot going on in Japan.”

That's simply wrong.

 See here that no other world leader bowed.

 Indeed the President of the United States bows to no one, much less a vanquished foe.  Note also that Akihito didn't return the bow, which is customary.  It would be considered rude.  Obviously he was taken back by Obama's gaff.

The State Department should know better than to hoist up this lie.

Tidbit:  In Japanese custom when you bow (ojigi) to anyone you bow also to their ancestors as well. Thus in bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito, he bowed to his father Emperor Shōwa, thus the despot that bombed Pearl Harbor.

Very wrong indeed.

Report: Obamacare Would INCREASE Cost of Healthcare - Reduce Senior Care

Kiss the Pelosi bill goodbye.

 "A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday. 

 The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether. 

 Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. 

That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

Additionally the Hill reports that the legislation would increase the cost of healthcare, not decrease it and balloon the already ballooning deficit.

Wanna bet that there are more than a few in congress who voted "yes" want that vote back in time for 2010?

Guess What? New York City Cannot Afford to Try 9/11 Suspects

This is in no way reflective on the fine men and women of the New York City Police department, or local FBI, but the fact of the matter is that New York City cannot afford the cost of hosting the 9/11 terrorist trials.

 According to the NYC Budget, posted here, the budgeted amount for police - who will provide the lion-share of work - is $4,358,387, for FY 2010.

 This is down nearly $300,000 from FY 2009. Mind you that this is "bare operating" cost of simply running the police department. There is nothing budgeted for "extra security", or contingency.

 Mayor "Spend 'em and Leave 'em" Bloomberg in January this year painted a "grim economic picture" for New York City in FY 2009.

"Mayor Bloomberg's bad-news budget tries to plug a $4 billion hole with less than $2 billion worth of spending cuts and new sales taxes - and counts on unions, Albany and the federal govermment to come up with the rest. He proposed a $43.4 billion budget Friday for the fiscal year starting July 1, up $123 million from the year before - one that slices deep into the pockets of city residents and the ranks of city workers. "Are we going to go through some difficult times? I don't think there's any question about that. But we have a plan to balance our budget," Bloomberg said. "It is serious, but I think it is manageable." The new cuts and taxes come on top of $1 billion in cuts and $1.5 billion in tax hikes he already pushed through, as administration economists predict the national economy and Wall Street will continue to pummel the city's revenues."

Being that the FY 2010 budget is $300,000 less for police, there is no doubt that NYC simply doesn't have what it takes fiscally to host the trial.

Did Obama Bankrupt the Country to the Point it Can't Defend itself?

At last the real reason Barack Obama is stalling on sending needed troops to Afghanistan - he can't - we're broke.

 The Ny Times explores this truth - a first I might add.

 "Senior administration officials reported to the New York Times today that budget projections for the war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1 million per soldier, per year. 

 The plan to add 40,000 American troops and greatly expand Afghan security forces, supported by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is estimated to cost between $40 billion to $54 billion annually. “Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House...appears almost constant,” according to the NYT. 

 The new estimate for the cost of war in Afghanistan will cancel out the $26 billion savings projected for a 2010 troop withdrawal in Iraq. Under this scenario, the overall military budget could rise as high as $734 billion. The highest annual military budget during the Bush era was $667 billion. 

 A senior administration official speaking anonymously with the NYT said that concerns over politically volatile spending influenced the President during a White House meeting on Wednesday. Obama was insistent that each military plan incorporates the quickest possible exit strategy. 

“He knows we cannot sustain this indefinitely,” the official said." 

 Of course "politically volatile spending", such as bailing out banks, Wall Street, Newspapers and God knows who else is just fine.

Back during Vietnam Democrats - who began the war - stopped the war by pulling funding. But at least they did it out front. Barack Obama did it from the rear - in secret - and I might add dishonestly.

 Subsequently he stuck a knife in the back of every soldier who has served in this war, for now there is no money to complete the task.

Just Words - Obama Was For Tribunals for 9/11 Terrorists Before He was Against it

Damaging.

 

We Need a New Federal Law - President Obama Not Allowed to Speak without a Teleprompter

Witness!



 "... Now, obviously Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that I'm sure helps to motivate the Prime Minister's deep interest in this issue. I certainly would be honored, it would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future. I don't have immediate travel plans, but it's something that would be meaningful to me. You had one more question, and I'm not sure I remember it. Was it North Korea?

 Q Whether or not you believe that the U.S. dropped a nuclear weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- it was right?

 PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, there were three sets of questions, right? You asked about North Korea?"

 So why can't Obama man-up and say whether or not Harry Truman - a Democrat - did the right thing? Obviously this is yet another example of an amature in action.

The Truth about 9/11? Clinton's Dismantling of the Defense Apparatus was to Blame

Not what you would pick up from the Ny Slimes telling of the story.

 There Jacob Heibrunn (sounds german?), attempt to prove that the book, "The Ground Truth - The Untold Story of America under Attack on 9/11" by John Farmer is proof solid that 9/11 was an "inside job".

First, Farmer was a council on the 9/11 Omission Commission, and obviously has a bone to pick with Bush and the War on Terror. Nothing he says in the book sheds any light and is much based on heresay than fact.  But notice something here.

"For all the trillions of dollars lavished on it, for all the talk about confronting new security threats, for all the exhortations to reinvent government, America’s defense establishment, as John Farmer reminds us in “The Ground Truth,” continued to fight the cold war more than a decade after it had ended. Preoccupied with building a costly missile defense system to counter a spurious menace from Russia and with maintaining “full spectrum dominance” over the rest of the globe, most Bush administration officials blithely ignored the danger emanating from the caves of Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and his acolytes plotted against America. Confronted by a small group of mostly Saudi nationals armed with box cutters, the central nervous system of the country’s defense agencies went into a state of cataleptic shock.

The only decisive action taken on 9/11 came not from the military, but from the courageous passengers who stormed the cockpit of United Airlines Flight 93, leading the hijackers to crash the plane over Pennsylvania farmland before it could reach its intended target in Washington. As senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, Farmer, who was the attorney general of New Jersey and is the dean of the Rutgers School of Law, investigated the derelict conduct of the national security apparatus. He was well prepared to do so.

In their valuable account of the commission’s activities, “Without Precedent,” the commission chairman, Thomas Kean, and the vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, noted that shortly after the attacks, Farmer — “one of our most important hires” — established a victims’ assistance center in New Jersey and helped the F.B.I. uncover important evidence in garbage at Newark International Airport.

But the commission’s efforts to reconstruct the tragedy itself were, at best, resented and, at worst, impeded by the sprawling defense bureaucracy and the Bush administration, both of which had much to hide. Even two reports by the inspectors general of the Defense and Transportation Departments, released in 2006, whitewashed government failures. Now that numerous transcripts and tapes have been declassified, however, Farmer draws on them to assail the government’s official depiction of 9/11 as so much public relations flimflam."

Right. Of course missing from the book is the thousands of hours of testimony - never challenged - that most of what occurred that morning was correct and indeed there was no government "coverup" or story concocted.

However the greater point was that because of the Clinton's administrations dismantling of the military apparatus during the 90s, and especially his approach to terrorism - treating it as a criminal act, the US was not prepared for such an attack.

"He shows that, perversely enough, the one defense agency that had suffered draconian budget cuts was Norad, which had seen its alert sites reduced from about two dozen to a pitiful seven and, in any case, was unable to view large areas of the continental United States owing to its antiquated radar system."

Note that the downsizing of NORAD was a "pet project" of the Clinton Administration.  So perhaps the release of this book, obviously done to embarrass or to blame the Bush administration instead does the opposite.  

Yet I find this so appropriate considering Eric Holder's decision to try the 9/11 conspirators in NYC, a return of the practices which made the Clinton years infamous.

President "O-Bow" to Anyone

Well I was right that Obama was on his way to another apology tour. Didn't take look for him to bow again, this type to a Japanese despot:

"Obama has now done it again. Andrew Malcolm asks (and reports): "How low will he go? Obama gives Japan's Emperor Akihito a wow bow." Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize."

This is expected of a gutless wonder, a child king with big talk but little action.   A fooking disgrace to Americans everywhere he treads.


UPDATE: Video:


 

Just Call Him - "Dollar Bill"! William Jefferson Gets 13 years

Justice finally done.

"Former Rep. William Jefferson was sentenced today to 13 years in prison for his conviction on 11 counts of public corruption in a case in which he famously hid $90,000 in his freezer. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III delivered the sentence at a packed courtroom in the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va.

Prosecutors had asked for 27 to 33 years in prison, while Jefferson's lawyers said the prison term should be less than 10 years. Jefferson stood stoically as the sentence was read, showing little emotion.

Ellis said that Jefferson, a New Orleans Democrat who served nine terms in Congress, must surrender at the federal correctional facility ultimately selected for his incarceration by the Bureau of Prisons. The judge said he will hold a hearing next week to set date for when Jefferson must report to prison. If the judge approves the prosecution's request, the former congressman would have to report immediately. Jefferson's attorneys have asked for Jan. 4 reporting date. Jefferson is expected to be assigned to a low-security prison in the federal system, possibly in Florida."

Should have gotten a lot more, but we'll take it.   Remember that this was the guy that Nancy (Clean the Swamp) Pelosi REFUSED to take off committee assignments until after his trial.

Don't drop the soap Bill. 

He was also ordered to forfeit nearly a half a million bucks, but the crook filed bankruptcy and owes his lawyers more than five million.