Chris Christie Vetoing Liberal Bullshit In New Jersey

Now, in the old days, New Jersey Democrats would have simply raised our taxes to pay for this shite:

Looks like word hasn’t reached all corners of New Jersey there is a new governor in Trenton. Gov. Christie has partially rejected the minutes of the March 9 meeting of the Urban Enterprise Zone Authority because of what he describes as $45,700 in unnecessary promotional and entertainment-related expenses for the Long Branch UEZ. The governor’s office released this list:

-$14,000 for promotional items at “conventions, expositions and conferences,” including such things as pads, pens, notebooks, flashlights, key chains, tee shirts, letter openers, sanitizer, Frisbees and other promotional items.
-$15,750 for “videography services” for recording “major car shows, cruise nights and concerts.”
-$15,000 for the “layout, production, printing, mailing and postage of a “UEZ City Calendar.”
-$700 for “refreshments such as donuts and coffee.”
-$250 committed to “travel,” for unspecified individuals, to include “tolls, parking and gas....

Next up, he's vetoing legislation that was proven to be "soft on crime". Just ask the dead:

Gov. Christie has conditionally vetoed a bill that would have changed the cycle of mandatory parole review from every three years to every 10 years. He also provided for the full repeal of the mandatory early release law that became controversial recently when two people out on early parole allegedly were involved in separate homicides.

About the early release law championed by Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman, Christie said, “Whatever original policy or principle motivated passage of this law, it failed to adequately consider the safety of the public. In recent months we have seen the horrific consequences of the early release law, which is why we must not wait any longer to take action and change it.”

There's no reason for criminals to have to go ten years between parole hearings; that's a bit cruel, even if the outcome if preordained. More importantly, he's working on repealing a law (signed by former governor and Democrat Jon Corzine) that gives dangerous criminals more freedom of movement than a scared public.

Trying to force taxpayers to ante up for frivolous spending, while setting criminals free to kill again - that's the way of the New Jersey Democrats. Thank God we have Chris Christie here to fight for us.

We need 1,000 more like him...

Israel Prepares For The War Against Hezbollah

Very interesting bit of pyschological warfate by the Israelis, as they declassified and released IDF maps detailing the location of Hezbollah's bunkers. Via Judith Levy at Ricochet:

If you open the PDF and scroll down to the satellite photo of the village, you will see that weapons caches have been placed beside mosques and hospitals, underneath schools, and in residential areas. El-Khiam -- which was already the site of serious hostilities with the Israelis in 2006 -- has thus been wired as a village-sized suicide bomb. If Hezbollah launches attacks from El-Khiam and the IDF retaliates, civilian casualties are all but guaranteed.

Judith feels the release is a three-pronged offensive: A warning to Hezbollah ("We know where you are..."), and to the Lebanese people (did they know their womenfolk and children were penciled in as human shields?), and to the international community at large, so that the world understands that any civilians killed in an upcoming conflict were placed in harm's way by radical Islamists.

A fascinating play. There will be war in the Middle East sooner rather than later, as various factions try to coalesce a fractured population around them by attacking Israel. And while Hezbollah may or may not start the war (it may be Egypt, Hamas, or Syria, they will undoubtedly go for glory once the shooting starts.

But will this release have any affect on "world opinion" at all?

I'm skeptical. I wrote last week on the upcoming war, and how the media is already ignoring the facts, telling half the story, and otherwise finessing the narrative in order to present the story as it has always been told by the Left: Democratic Israel bad, bloodthirsty Islamist murderers good.

In theory, this should be big news. If it is not treated that way, if it is dismissed or ignored, well...then the ending to the story has already been written, no matter ho hard Israel tries to avoid civilian causalities, and regardless of how many innocents are killed by propaganda-seeking, Jew-hating terrorists...

More Bad Polls For Barack

It's no wonder his television ratings are sliding into oblivion; when the main character is so repulsive, people tend to turn away in disgust. Speaking of which:

American voters disapprove 48 - 42 percent of the job President Barack Obama is doing and say 50 - 41 percent he does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012, both all-time lows, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 46 - 46 percent job approval rating and a 45 - 47 percent split on the President's re-election in a March 3 survey by the independent Quinnipiac University.

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, President Obama gets 36 percent of the vote to 37 percent for an unnamed Republican challenger.

Democrats approve 80 - 13 percent of the job Obama is doing, but disapproval is 81 - 9 percent among Republicans and 50 - 39 percent among independent voters. Men disapprove 52 - 41 percent while women split 44 - 44 percent.

In other words, he's got his base. And no one else.

DUDE! You can't win election for county dogcatcher with these kind of numbers...

Ratings Plunge: Time To Cancel "The Obama Show"?

Looks like the "Amateur Socialism Variety Hour" has finally jumped the shark, and viewers, tired of seeing the same once-fascinating, now repetitive gag over and over, have turned away in boredom and disgust:

President Obama’s speech viewership keeps on slipping. Monday night’s policy address on Libya delivered 25.6 million viewers, continuing the president’s trend of declining ratings for his issue-oriented telecasts.

The speech was down 12% from Obama’s address on Iraq last August (29.2 million), which fell 9% from his speech on the Gulf Coast oil spill in June (32.1 million), which in turn dropped 21% from his Afghanistan speech back in December of 2009 (40.8 million). Alas, contractual agreements forbid cancelling this show before November 2012.

Expect the ratings slide to continue, as more and more folks get turned off by the illogic, irrationality, and plain nastiness of the lead character. He'll retain a loyal base of support, of course, but in the end, it appears quite unlikely that this will propel the show to have it's four year contract renewed...

Did Obama Just Convince Gaddafi To Dig In?

From the reports on the ground, it sure sounds like it. Via WSJ's Best of the Web, NBC's Jim Maceda reports from Tripoli:

I can tell you that the whole, the atmospherics here of the government officials and minders is very different. They had gone to ground for a number of days: very quiet, very tense [since Obama spoke]. They're looking much more themselves: much more bellicose, much more defiant in the past 24 hours. I would think, it's an educated guess but I would say that Gadhafi, after hearing that speech, . . . now is feeling a lot better. That they're feeling that they dodged a bullet.

If NATO's taking over, they like that. They've got much better relations with NATO than with the United States in general. And they love the idea that the US position as stated by Obama is that they're not looking for regime change. Soon as he heard that, I'm sure Gadhafi was quite excited. He thinks he can probably negotiate his way out of this as he has over the past 41 years in other situations.

Seems like Gaddafi is channelling Jersey Shore's Ronnie Mangro, who, after busted for multiple violations of his relationship with Sammi Giancola, came out with this bit of Zen:



"I'm definitely not a saint. If I walked into a church, I'd probably burst into flames to be honest with you ... But I think that I can probably talk my way out of the hole I dug. I mean, how deep is a grave?" - Ronnie Magro

No doubt Ghaddafi is thinking along the exact same lines.

Heckuva job, Baracky...

American People: Global Warming Is Crap !

Gallup:

With Earth Day about a month away, Americans tell Gallup they worry the most about several water-related risks and issues among nine major environmental issues. They worry least about global warming and loss of open spaces....

...Americans are less worried today than they were 10 years ago about all eight issues Gallup measured in 2001.

"Global Warming "suffered the second biggest fall, from 63% to 51%, (-12%) of any category offered by the poll.

Two thoughts:

-51% is still too large of a group of "believers". But shockingly low, considering how the climate change agenda has been pushed so aggressively by the media and, over the last two years, by the Obama administration. Not to mention corporations that so fear being on the wrong side of the thugocracy that they too spend more time talking about "going green" than generating profits.

-in light of the point above, should we even concern ourselves overmuch about both the effect of the media on public opinion, and on the ability of the Obama administration at this point to affect the same? It seems as if every day, despite the increasingly hysterical sales pitch of the "warmists", more and more of the one-time "true believers" are now shaking their heads and walking away...

Looks as if the American people are a lot smarter and savvier than the media, and the Democratic party, would like to admit.

Makes me proud. Bodes well for 2012...

Bob Menendez Is Right: Qaddafi IS a Terrorist!

We do our fair share - and then some - of Senator Bob Menendez (D-La Raza) bashing, but we'll give him credit for being right for a change.

From his web page:

US Senator Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations committee - released the following statement urging President Obama in his remarks to the country tonight to remind Americans about Muammar Qaddafi’s role in ordering the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988. "

Qaddafi is a terrorist – the moral equivalent of Osama bin Laden – a man who ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270, including 34 New Jerseyans, and who in 2009 swapped a lucrative oil deal in exchange for the release of the convicted Pan Am bomber. A man President Ronald Reagan referred to as ‘this mad dog of the Middle East’ because of his relentless instigation of and support for terrorism. A man who has trained terrorists in North Africa and has proven that his reign of terror extends well beyond his own national and regional borders. A man who referred to the 1985 slaughter of innocent travelers, including an eleven-year-old American child, by terrorists at the Rome and Vienna airports as a ‘noble act.’ There is no question that, if given the chance, Qaddafi will continue to support terrorism and, therefore, continue to threaten Americans at home and abroad. That is why a Libyan no fly zone is not only in the interest of the international community, but is also in the national security interest of the United States.”

Ironically, if Obama had used some of this language last night (or earlier, had he been so inclined to talk to us plebes), he might find support for his Libyan war to be more robust. But Obama, the king of moral equivalence, no doubt sees gobs of it between Libya's historical atrocities and those "committed" by The Great Satan. He can no more raise Menendez's point than he can cut taxes, it goes so against his grain that even with the Teleprompter's urging, it is unlikely he can get the words out.

More's the pity. As Obama and the Democrats are about to find out, 2012 is going to be about moral clarity, on multiple issues. The days of fudging with fine oratory has passed. Will likely leave this particular president as a fish out of water, as details, facts, logic, and honesty are a wee bit out of his reach. And if Obama can get outflanked by the likes of a Ronald Reagan-quoting liberal like Bob Menendez on the issues of war and moral clarity, well, he's in way, way worse shape than I ever imagined...

Scott Powers: More Coward Than Man...

Yeah, that's right. Scott Powers is the Orlando Sentinel reporter who was stuffed in a closet during a Joe Biden fundraiser held at a private home, because his staffers didn't want the media there. Here's the long and short of it:

As the unaware $500-a-head invitees dined on caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese, grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps, veteran reporter Scott Powers was locked away. The Orlando Sentinel reporter was ushered into the closet inside wealthy property developer Alan Ginsburg’s Winter Falls mansion, after being told that Joe Biden and Senator Bill Nelson had not yet arrived. T

hey were due to speak to the audience to raise money for the 2012 elections. He was told he could only come out when the politicians were ready to give their speeches. Veteran reporter Scott Powers was locked in the closet for most of the event.

He emailed from inside ‘sounds like a nice party’.

After 90 minutes he was allowed out to hear Biden and Nelson speak for 35 minutes, before being taken back to the closet for the remainder of the event. Where the party of the people goes to pocket some some cash, imprison reporters, and play a little tennis...Alan Ginsberg's mansion. Hey, he can afford the carbon credits, I suppose....

Why would any man allow himself to be locked in a closet, no less a man whose profession is based upon shining light into the corridors of power? Why didn't Scott Powers call 911 from inside the closet? As he reportedly sent emails from inside, he obviously had cell coverage. Why, upon his release, did he not demand audience with Biden or Nelson to report the crime? Or at least threaten a lawsuit? And why did the Orlando Sentinel refuse to allow him to publish the story?

Many questions, but just one answer. Access to power. Scott Powers knew that if he raised a stink either during or after his imprisonment, he would likely be barred from future events. The Sentinel knew that if they publicized this Third-World treatment of the American media by the Democratic party, they too would lose their access to scoops from various Washington insiders. So they allowed a felony to go unreported in order to keep what they felt was their most valuable possession: again, access to power.

It's a game the Obama White House plays constantly. Chris Wallace pointed it out just yesterday on FOX News Sunday, asking (rhetorically) why the administration sent Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates to talk about Libya on every other Sunday talk show except theirs. Well, that's what happens when you don't play along with the Obama administration. Get your access cut off, or get locked in a closet. or both, if you complain about it.

Scott Powers could have taken this opportunity to expose one of the ugly truths about the thuggishness of the Obama administration - the threats, fear-mongering, and literal imprisonment that takes place when you disobey or disrupt the party in any way. He could have done his journalistic duty and shined a light into a very dark moment in American history, a moment that is still unfolding. He could have made a difference.

Instead, it appears as if Scott Powers decided the most important thing he could do was take care of Scott Power's career, and thus put a good natured smiley-face on a criminal act, albeit one committed by a criminal syndicate that he apparently is sympathetic with. Out the window goes accountability, but access to power is kept close to the vest.

Don't be surprised if you see Scott Power's byline, by the way, next to an exclusive interview with either Biden or Obama himself. Cowards are easy to buy off, after all...

Liberals Debate Michelle Bachmann: A Nut, Or A Slut?

Well, you knew this was coming...women are equal, nay , better than men, and must be treated with respect, dignity and all the protections of the law so that they may reach their fullest potential.

Unless they're conservative women. In which case, feel free to whip it out, because they are asking for it. With Michelle Bachmann's presidential run looking more and more likely (she wowed them in Iowa), carbuncular seether Bill Maher licked his chapped lips, and started the party:

“Well you know, a birther could be running for president,” Maher said. “Michele Bachmann this week threw her hat into the ring, kind of. We think she’s going to be running for president – for those that find Sarah Palin too intellectual. Michele Bachmann for president – as a comedian, all I have to say is where can I donate to this cause?”

“I love this,” he said. “If Bachmann and Palin both get in, that’s two bimbos...."

More un-PC and ugly than anything that ever came out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth, but the media and the groups allegedly formed to protect women sit back and snicker along with the Mahers...

There are two psychosis at play here. First is the need to label any conservative women who seems threatening to the Left as either a nut or a slut, so as to make them unappetizing to the American people. Much in the same way Islamic regimes do to female dissidents. See Sarah Palin (both), Christine O'Donnell (nut), Nikki Haley (slut), Sharron Angle (nut), or outside of the political arena, see former beauty queen Carrie Prejean (both).

The second move, once the "slut label" has been applied, is to attempt a psychological rape of the subject. Hey - she's a conservative woman, a slut, so don't blame me, she's asking for it! And like most rape, the desire is less physical than emotional - it is based upon hatred, fed by a deep desire to dominate and subordinate the female in question to their will. As I wrote some time back:

For some reason, when liberals see a Sarah Palin or a Carrie Prejean [and now a Christine O'Donnell], the impulse immediately is for the lowest road possible: not to engage them, but to defile them. Not to prove them wrong, but to humiliate them in the vilest way possible. The immediate, insatiable urge of the Left is to wreck a female adversary so completely that no one can look at them the same way; so that anyone who sees their victim will see the marks on them and turn away in disgust or openly mock with righteous venom, and to hopefully so emotionally destroy their female "enemies" that their self-esteem is ravaged, and they slink away from public life, alone and ashamed.

There's a word for this type of assault. Rape.

Yes, the assault isn't physical, but the thought process behind the rapes of Palin and Prejean are identical to that of the common street rapist: To defile, degrade, humiliate, embarrass, and make themselves feel better in the process. A broken victim is what each hopes to obtain, and neither stops the assault until the surrender is complete.

Here comes the Left, with their mouths open and their pants unzipped, ready to defile Michelle Bachmann. We must make a stand now, and not let the daughters of the Tea Party get scarred for life by the vicious, misogynist, hate-filled minions of the Left...

Why We Love Pakistan's Veena Malik

Because American men love their women tough. Whether it is our pride in our tough-as-nails American servicewoman toting rifles overseas, our admiration for the stunning Mediterranean beauties of the IDF, or our respect for the gun-totin', shoot-from-the-lip Sarah Palin, we like women who take no guff.

Which brings us to Veena Malik. A stunningly beautiful Pakistani actress and Bollywood star, I posted yesterday how, on Paki National TV, she called out a busybody Islamic cleric, questioned his commitment to Islam, and labeled him, literally, as a child-molesting hypocritical pervert, while daring him to mete out the same punishment to himself that he was calling for on others, including her. And she spared no love for the smarmy MSM-equivalent host, either. Maybe she was channelling Sarah Palin...?

Anyway, the video is here. Shocking in its bravery; finally, a movie star with the courage to take on despots, as opposed the the courage it takes to cozy up to them, Hollywood-style. And to honor her bravery (but hopefully not her memory; police states hate public takedowns), and to honor Rule 5, let's give a little Western exposure to Miss Veena Malik:

UPDATED:

Pakistani Actress Rips Muslim Cleric A New One...

(update: Rule 5 photos of Miss Malik can be found here)

....Actress Veena Malik comes back from a trip to India, and what she thinks is a standard celebrity interview on Pakistani TV turns out to be a setup for her to be reviled by a local Islamic mufti. Alas for said cleric and the not-so-cunning reporter that tried to punk her, Veena is not in the mood to take anyone's shit on this particular day, and reams them both.

My favorite part is at the 3:00 minute mark, where she reminds the mufti that he is not even permitted to glance upon her in her current state of dress, and demands that he publicly punish himself.

"You should be punished, because charity begins at home", she sneers at this bearded hypocrite. And rightfully so.

"If you want to do something for the glory of Islam, you have plenty of opportunities...there are many things to talk about...why Veena Malik? Because Veena Malik is a woman? Because Veena Malik is a soft target?"

Well, if that what they thought...they were a bit mistaken. Watch it all:

Via Nick Cohen at The Spectator, who adds:

If we are going to avoid a clash of civilisations, we are going to need many more like the Pakistani actress Veena Malik. Watch her take on a mullah, who is trying to accuse her of immoral behaviour. This is no small accusation in Pakistan where Islamist death squads and their collaborators in the state intelligence service, operate at will. The talk show setting of the attempt at trial by media is commonplace too. The murder of Salman Taseer followed days of hacks whipping up “Muslim rage” against him.

Instead of being frightened, Malik turns on her accuser and the journalist, who helped set her up, and lets them have it. Brave, beautiful and utterly magnificent.

Yet I fear for her life. Hopefully it is unwarranted. But I would feel a lot better if we offered her asylum, stat...

Gaddafi Feels The Wheels Of Obama's Bus

Muammar Gaddafi, meet the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Oprah Winfrey, Van Jones, and all the others who where thrown under the bus by Barack Hussein Obama once they were no longer useful to him.

Back in 2010, the erstwhile despot showered his passion upon the man with the Muslim middle name:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi considers the US president a blessing to the Muslim world. In a speech published in London-based al-Hayat newspaper on Saturday, Gaddafi praised Barack Obama, called him a "friend" and said there is no longer any dispute between his country and the US.

Gaddafi stressed that Obama's presidency is "a major historical gain" and said, "He is someone I consider a friend. He knows he is a son of Africa. Regardless of his African belonging, he is of Arab Sudanese descent, or of Muslim descent. He is a man whose policy should be supported, and he should be assisted in implementing it in any way possible, since he is now leaning towards peace."

And why shouldn't Gaddafi have felt that way? Look at the love and respect:

Well, that was then, when Obama was trying to show the world he was the anti-Bush. Today our chameleon-esque leader has decided (or been told) he actually needs to be more like Bush. So under the bus you go, Muammar, and under the bombs as well. Because first and foremost, Barack Obama is worried about Barack Obama, and if that means turning on old pals and killing them so he can seem like a big man, well...there you go.

Don't feels so bad, Muammar. You've got plenty of company under there as well. And I actually feel a little better too - maybe, one can hope, former secret gay lover Hugo Chavez is next?

If not, I'll even settle for the ouster of this petty socialist - Ortega, was it?

Call it "the handshake of doom". Future despots who get the hale-and hearty shake from Barack Obama should wash their hands immediately afterwards...and count their fingers, just to make sure they haven't been "redistributed"...

"War is no place for a law professor"

...that's the title of a Jen Rubin blog post, and as usual our brilliant Jewo-Con hits the nail on the head. Why has the Libyan War turned into an Insta-muddle? Because our president is not a leader, not even a true "thinker", he is merely the guy who occupies the societal rung below used-car salesman: He's a law professor, and not an especially good one at that.

Why are we where we are? Jen explains:

Obama’s misguided view of U.S. power and unhealthy attachment to international consensus (that doesn’t exist) forces him to lie to Congress and the American people. It’s not a war. He already answered House Speaker John Boehner (R), who merely wants to know the basics. (Are we going to let Gaddafi stay? What’s the benchmark for success?).

Obama’s look-ma-no-hands approach to wartime leadership has become so extreme that he can’t give a speech to the country for fear of looking like all presidents of all those “big wars.” This has become a farce — and, as Koffler argues, the reason why heading the Harvard Law Review and impressing New York Times columnists with proficiency in philosophy are not qualifications for the presidency. Maybe they are red flags.

Well, for the American people, an endorsement from the New York Times should be the kiss of death. And likely will be, in 2012, if they still exist and anyone is still reading them.

But the lesson for 2012 is we need a president who can multi-task, who can conquer our economic issues but can also viably don the commander-in-chief's uniform when duty calls. For it appears as the intelligentsia, especially the leftist variety, is simply not up to the task.

Read Keith Koffler's entire piece, entitled Chicago law professor attacks Libya, where he asks the FOX-reality type question, What happens when academics attack...?

Frank Lautenberg Soils Himself, Again...

....and all of New Jersey cringes in shame. Trust me, in the new political climate that has taken hold in the Garden State, there is little to no chance either of our Senatorial buffoons, Mr, Lautenberg or Bob Menendez (D-La Raza), will get re-elected.

Well, Lautenberg is 87 years old, so it is unlikely he'll go for it again in 2014. Based on his insane ramblings at some sort of pro-abortion rally the other day, perhaps it is best if he simply retires to the day room and stares quietly out the window for the remainder of his term. Via Hot Air:



… The Republicans in Congress claim they’re concerned about the budget balance, but it’s a disguise! It’s not true! It’s a lie! That’s not what they want. They want — they want other people not to be able to have their own opinions. They don’t deserve the freedoms that are in the Constitution! But we’ll give it to them anyway.

Sounds like Old Man Lautenberg is talking about Obamacare, actually. But perhaps, like the crazy geezer who I see in the Port Authority every day, it is best just to walk right by him and ignore his incoherent monologues. it is kinder to treat him thus, rather than take him seriously and force him to face his oncoming dementia...

FYI, that is what most of us are doing in Jersey these days, even many Democrats - just turning our heads and feeling a slight onrush of shame that he does "represent us" in the U.S. Senate. Of course, he does nothing of the sort, he merely represents the furthest-left interests of the Democratic party, despite the detrimental effect it has on the people he is paid to represent.

But this too will change. Menendez's (D-Illegal Immigrants) turn will come first...

Why Did Islamic Science Stop In The 13th Century?

Scientific American reminds an America full of bitter, clinging Islamophobes that
without the flourishing of science in Muslim lands of the past, the modern world might not have algorithms or algebra....

Of course, somebody else would have came up with them - mathematics is an art of discovery, not invention - if the Arabs did not. But what is interesting about the Sci-American piece is the six slides they present as evidence of a great Muslim past; they seem to start in the 800's and end in the year 1260. Louis Manger at Ricochet refers to A New Dark Age as he asks:

Are there no more recent examples? If so, why? Certainly, a belief in Islam did not impede the immensely influential scientific contributions of Muslims in Medieval times. Yet, it appears that such intellectual development has been stagnant in the modern Muslim world.

If I recollect, the Dark Ages as referred to in Europe reflected a time up until the 13th century, when light was shone via the Renaissance. It appears as if the Muslim lands had a Renaissance, which were then followed by a Dark Ages. One they are still in to this day, some seven centuries later.

Many theories abound - a society that did not have the concept of wealth transfer and "corporations" squandered human potential, slave labor led to a lack of necessity to create work-saving devices, Islam as a whole was more resistant to modernity than Catholicism, and most interestingly, the fact that religious study was the way to personal and social advancement, rather than hard sciences.

Maybe. But I think one line, oft repeated in the Arab world, can sum up quite succinctly their woes:

"We love death more than you love life"

...and their culture supports this, making heroes of those who die while killing innocents, while having no value placed upon what few intellectuals still remain within their society.

It's a prescription for a permanent Dark Age. And don't be fooled - they are trying desperately to drag us down with them. Do you think the Iranians, laboriously building a nuclear weapon, are not now fantasizing about whose head to drop it on?

When their society changes, the Muslim world will again rise to prominence. But while tied to an inflexible brand of Islam and ruled over by cruel leaders who need to exploit increasingly ignorant subjects to stay in power, there will be no growth.

So I really could not be bothered about what magic Muslims did a millennium ago. I'd rather worry about what space-age weapons can do when put into the hands of Dark Age despots the day after tomorrow...

The War Against Israel: Media Already Finessing The Narrative....

...part of it is the casual anti-Semitism that is as common to the liberal crowd as terms like "tea-bagger" and "bitter clinger". The other part is the sheer unprofessionalism and laziness endemic to today's mainstream media, where it is easier to perpetuate a given storyline - no matter how out of date or downright untruthful - than to introduce a new paradigm to readers in order to help them understand developing events.

We are on the cusp of a third intifada against Israel, as the Palestinians fear a grim truth is about to slip out: The Middle East mess has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews, and everything to do with the despots leading the Arab world, including Hamas. The Palis, like petulant teenagers, are peeved that the focus has been taken off their eternal grievance, while their leadership fears the next revolt could topple them. So war against Israel is declared, and the Fogel family is slaughtered in their bed (including a five month old baby), missiles begin to rain anew out of Gaza and into Southern Israel, and bombs blow up buses filled with children.

Where is the media on all of this? Nowhere. The Fogel story was barely reported, while the Gaza missile onslaught has been ignored entirely. The bus bombing got some airtime, but the story was already being placed into a "cycle of violence" meme, despite only one wheel of said cycle actually doing the violence.

Why would the media place what is essentially a blackout on Palestinian atrocities? Omri Ceren at Contentions gives us a hint:

A decision has apparently been made to escalate the violence against Israel, and Israel will eventually have to retaliate. When that happens the media spin will be somewhat split. Some of the coverage will imply that the Palestinians have exhausted their numinous patience with “the stalled peace process,” and can’t help but lash out. Other stories will insist that the Palestinians are merely reacting to an Israeli-triggered “cycle of violence,” and can’t help but lash out. Glossing over Palestinian violence at the beginning of the escalation is critical to making both narratives work.

So it will be "blame the Jews" time when Israel decides to protect her children from bloodthirsty murderers. Given the minimalistic noise from Barack Obama, there is no doubt he approves of the increasingly bizarre media spin, as it will prove a useful tool for which to bash Israel with when they do retaliate.

Nice to see the government and the media working hand-in-hand to destroy Israel. I would respect them both much more, though, if they would just come clean and admit exactly what they are doing....

Obama's Libya Coalition Crumbles

President Obama keeps swearing that within a few days, we're handing off the Libyan War to our "allies" and/or "coalition partners", or whatever you wish to call the feckless European membership of NATO.

But what happens if there is no coalition to hand the war off to? Germany has decided it doesn't want to play anymore, so they are taking their weapons and going home:

Today the German defence ministry announced Berlin had pulled out of any military operations in the Mediterranean.
A ministry spokesman said two frigates and two other ships with a crew of 550 would be reverted to German command.
Some 60 to 70 German troops participating in NATO-operated AWACS surveillance operations in the Mediterranean would also be withdrawn, according to the ministry.
Berlin isn't participating in the operation to impose a no-fly zone in Libya and abstained on the U.N. resolution authorising it.

Meanwhile, five minutes into the war, the Brits are already running out of ammo:

The Navy could run out of Tomahawk missiles after a fifth of the Navy stockpile has been used against Libya, sources disclosed yesterday.

Defence insiders say as many as 12 of the weapons have been fired from the hunter–killer submarine Triumph in the past four days.

If this is correct, the Navy will have used up to 20 per cent of its 64 Tomahawks in the opening salvos of the war, leading to fears that it is "burning through" its armoury.

The situation could become an embarrassment for the Government if the submarine were the only vessel within range of a number of targets but could not fulfil the mission.

"Could"? It seems as if one truth has been laid bare: The European Continent is no longer in position to defend itself without the United States of America. And we should never let them forget that.

But back to the bigger issue: Barack Obama is about to find himself in quite the quandary. His "war coalition" is about to disintegrate, coincidentally at the exact moment they were supposed to take over the heavy lifting from the United States, leaving him - and the American people, and their armed forces - holding the bag.

He will be left to prosecute the war against Qaddafi virtually alone, or we will be forced to retreat in humbling defeat.

Knowing how Obama feels about the nation that elected him president, it's not to difficult to guess which option he will choose.

We'll have to guess, because the president is unavailable right now. Not much of a worker is Barack Obama, so while he sends boys off to die in a war he entered as an afterthought, he's doing what he does best: Partying with his ugly-ass wife:

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, participate in a reception in La Moneda Palace in Santiago, Chile, last night

God help us all....

Did Obama Go To War To Reduce America's Ability To Go To War?

(NOTE: updated below, Obama answers the question posed in the post title with an unambiguous "yes!")

Sounds like an odd precept, but as with all liberals, the counter-commonsense explanation is usually the correct one.

Never waste a crisis, the Obama administration is fond of saying. Well, here was a crisis, all right: A hated dictator lashing out violently and with ill intent at his own population in an attempt to hold on to power. Obama dithered for days and days, loathing the idea of leading troops into battle (like most cowards), even if his role was more metaphorical than not. So what convinced him?

Massimo Calabresi at Time has some thoughts:

American policy is that Gaddafi should be removed from power. But Obama is interpreting U.N. resolution 1973, which authorized the intervention, to stop short of green-lighting Gaddafi's removal. He believes it only allows military action to protect civilians. Therefore, he explained yesterday, “when it comes to our military action, we are doing so in support of U.N. Security Resolution 1973. That specifically talks about humanitarian efforts. And we are going to make sure that we stick to that mandate.” So no targeting Gaddafi with smart bombs or ousting him with special forces.

The British apparently disagree with that interpretation, but for U.S. political purposes, what matters is that Obama is again acting to strengthen an idea: that international limits apply when one goes to war. Of course, that's not a very controversial idea either. The U.S. has long supported the Geneva conventions and the laws of war. But George W. Bush embraced interrogation techniques the U.S. had previously said were illegal, used of force outside a U.N. mandate and refused to comply with elements of the Geneva conventions, like providing access to the ICRC to prisoners.

Ignoring the lefty potshots at W., Calabresi makes an interesting case. Did Obama go to war to prove that under his leadership, we can exercise our military force while remaining within the strict guideline of "international law"? And by strictly limiting the mission to what was delineated by the United Nations, is he acting in a way to set a precedent for military action, where future presidents cannot act unless they get approval from an international body, and even then, must limit themselves to goals set out by foreign diplomats?

Is Barack Obama essentially ceding control of our military to the United Nations? It's long been a dream of the hard-left, under the assumption that our forces will then only fight for "social justice", and for the Palestinians. Was he convinced to enter the Libyan fray as a way to change the template forever, to hamstring American military might, and to leave our national security to the "Secretary Generals" of the UN, whose great bureaucratic wisdom certainly would trump the judgement of a future cowboy president?

Why not? Obama has given no other compelling reason to go to war, and what reasons he does offer keeps changing. It reminds me of nothing more than the passing of Obamacare, when his rationale kept shifting week to week - as each lie was exposed, another position was staked out. Turns out all the dancing was due to the president not wanting to tell Americans the truth about his ultimate goal - the takeover and nationalization of our health care system.

Seems like his M.O. is exactly the same in Libya. Talk about brutality, talk about allies, talk about "protection",but don't talk about subordinating our strength to the perfidious thugs and punks that roam the halls of Turtle Bay...


UPDATE: Via the PJ Tatler, Obama has admitted to the above:

And that’s why building this international coalition has been so important because it means that the United States is not bearing all the cost. It means that we have confidence that we are not going in alone, and it is our military that is being volunteered by others to carry out missions that are important not only to us, but are important internationally. And we will accomplish that in a relatively short period of time.

We are being volunteered by Barack Obama to serve for the whim of the United Nations. Isn't that special....

Barack Obama Presents: The Libyan War - Another Way To Disrespect America!

...and her institutions, and her international standing....

Congress is rightfully atwitter over Obamas' refusal to consult them before making war on Libya. George W. Bush, remember, got Congressional approval prior to every major military move (Change!). So here comes the president’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, who responded to congressional frustration with this gem:

“First of all, consultation with Congress is important, as I said. Secondly, the administration welcomes the support of Congress in whatever form that they want to express that support.

"Welcomes the support"? And what happens if Congress does not want to support this military adventure? Will Obama close his eyes and ears and pretend he is some type of all-empowered leader with a "King's Army" at the ready, like China's Hu (whose job he's publicly lusted after), or perhaps even - dare I say - a Muammar Qaddafi? Will he shriek "off with their heads!" should Congress choose not to fund this particular war? More importantly, is Obama in touch with reality in any way whatsoever?

Over at Contentions, Peter Wehner makes the following observation:

It’s also worth noting, isn’t it, that Obama sought the approval of the “international community” before he sought the approval of the United States Congress....

One possible explanation for this is that Obama seeks the approval of and has a higher regard for the opinion of the “international community,” consisting of countless despotic states, than he does America’s elected representatives. Which would be quite a mindset for an American president to possess.

Really - is there any question on that?

Obama declares war, refuses to pay even the mildest lip-service to the Constitution he swore to uphold, and then takes his family off to dance the samba and play soccer in Brazil. Meanwhile, young men risk their lives in a war in which no one, including the president, has explained exactly why we are fighting, or for whose benefit, or how it's going to end.

But don't bother the president with that stuff, unless you come to praise him....after all, he's got a Nobel Peace Prize (for the moment) and the backing of the United Nations (insert awed gasp here), and all we have is...our pathetic constitution, and the remnants of a Republic...

For the moment.

How's That "Reset" Working Out?

Well, like everything Barack Obama touches...not so well. Which is possibly why he left town just as the bombs began to fall on Libya, to be as far away from command and control as possible. And the generals breathed a sigh of relief...

Via Brietbart, we get the Russian response to the Libyan offensive:

MOSCOW (AP) - Fiery Russian condemnation of the allied air assault on Libya threatened to complicate Defense Secretary Robert Gates' meetings here Tuesday with leaders who are already at odds with the U.S. over missile defense issues.

Gates met with Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov before a scheduled session with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. But he was not expected to see Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who railed Monday against the strikes on Libya, likening them to "a medieval call for a crusade." Putin appeared to link the Libya action to the ongoing debate between the U.S. and Russia over the planned European missile defense shield, suggesting that it proved Russia is correct to heighten its own defenses.

And as Abe Greenwald reminds us:

The Obama administration considers its diplomacy with Russia its foreign-policy highpoint...

I'm reminded of a Jim Carrey flick - The Truman Show. Folks wore buttons that asked, "How's it going to end?"

I'm kind of wondering the same thing myself...

Will Obama See A "War Bounce"? Nah...

Right or wrong, most Americans usually feel a swell of patriotism when the missiles fly and our boys go off to do battle in some far-away, godforsaken nation, and ascribe that swelling of pride to the commander in chief. Remember Bush I and his near 90% approval rating during Gulf War I: The Prequel? Well, most Americans didn't remember it either on Election Day 1992, but that's not the point. The point was he seemed unstoppable, for a while....

So what about Barack Obama? Certainly launching a "liberal war", to protect the Libyan people against their government, is a noble goal, and without an evil Republican in the White House, the media is not likely to push the "war for oil" angle, no matter how much of the black goo lies underneath Libyan sands. If the war remains a Bosnia-type air-only war, it is unlikely many Americans will get killed, thus ensuring the dreaded "body bag" pictures (you know, the ones the media were forbidden to take by the Bush administration - another policy that Obama will surely follow).

But this blog believes Obama will see little bounce - save for the dead-cat variety - from the "Libyan War". The moment to paint a picture of an involved commander-in-chief is now, with severe news conferences mixed with photos of a somber looking president looking off in the distance, with anguished concern over the boys overseas...

We're not getting those pictures - despite the media's overwhelming desire to provide them - because Obama decided to get our of town right after "declaring" war. So instead we get pictures of the Obamas enjoying yet another family vacation while the world burns:

By the time he returns, events will have spun out of his control, for better or worse. And at the microphone, whether taking credit or assigning blame, Americans will know, first and foremost, that unlike George W. Bush, their current president ran away when the mantle of Commander-in-Chief needed to be donned.

So no bounce for you, Baracky. Aside from the "dead-cat" variety, because your numbers are so shockingly low as it is, well.....as they say, drop a dead cat off a rooftop, and he'll bounce. But he'll still be (politically) dead:

Before the Japanese earthquake and resulting nuclear crisis, a majority of Americans -- 55% -- said President Obama is doing a good job of protecting the nation's environment. At the same time, 55% said he is doing a poor job of making America prosperous and, by 47% to 41%, Americans said he is doing a poor rather than a good job of improving the nation's energy policy.

Alas for Barack, save for the psychotic few, we very rarely vote based on who's keeping the trees green...

Barack Obama: Accelerating The Decline of New Orleans

...and it's not even because it will help him politically. It's because his administration is afraid that it might help a Republican peripherally...

Calculated, callus, and conniving, they are - using poor & minority Americans as bent-over human stepping stools to further their own power. That's the Obama administration - and the Democratic party - for you.

So here's the story: Harry Shearer (better known as the voice of Mr. Burns, and as Spinal Tap's famed bass player, Derek Smalls) is promoting his upcoming documentary, The Big Uneasy, about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. He was recently interviewed by the Washington Post, where he spoke of some of the issues he faced in trying to get help for the flood-ravaged city from the federal government:

Last year he was complaining publicly about the Obama administration’s lack of response to whistleblower allegations and to the Army Corps’s decision to opt for a technically inferior levee reconstruction plan (detailed in the film).

“I will tell you flat-out—without using the man’s name—that somebody who’s arguably quite knowledgeable about Washington said to me, ‘[David] Axelrod and [Rahm] Emanuel don’t want to do anything to help New Orleans,’ ” he says gravely, his voice lowering, about Obama’s senior adviser and former chief of staff. “ ‘That just makes [Louisiana Gov.] Bobby Jindal look good.’ ... You can’t get more Nixonian than that.

The Democrats: Destroying the city of New Orleans to save themselves. Starring Barack Obama as President "Tricky Dick" Nixon. Or perhaps as C. Montgomery Burns...couldn't you just hear Obama channelling him after the November 2010 "shellacking"?:

"It's ironic, that this anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail! That's democracy for you."

And we're supposed to be the small-mined hateful racists. Sheesh....

By Next Year, It Will Be Cheaper To Eat Your iPad...

...than, you know, actual food.

Speaking in Queens, New York Fed President William Dudly tries to calm the natives by telling them how good they actually have it:

"Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," he said. "You have to look at the prices of all things."

But cynical and world weary New Yorkers are....well, they're cynical and world-weary first, Democrats second:

Reuters reports that this "prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience," with someone quipping, "I can't eat an iPad." Another attendee asked, "When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?"

Glenn Reynolds posts at the Tatler:

As an aside, though, note that the places where prices are dropping, like consumer electronics, are the least regulated sectors, while the places where prices are skyrocketing, like food and energy, are among the most heavily regulated. Is there a lesson here?

Yes, but not one that they’ll take.

Expect the government to try to regulate iPads next. In the meantime, the rest of us will have to continue to find the few remaining unregulated portions of the American economy...and figure out how to cook them.

C'mon..."Blackberry au gratin" doesn't sound all that bad, does it?

Khloe Kardashian: Conservative!

Finally, a more cerebral reason to love a Kardashian...

While skimming thru Stacy McCain's archives, I found this tweet he posted from Khloe K.




Any girl who tweets the words of a self-made millionaire and Tea Partier extraordinaire like Herman Cain deserves props for her obviously higher level of intelligence and advanced critical thought processes. Unlike most of the idiots that parades in front of the cameras...

Additionally, well, I'd have to say Khloe Kardashian leans a little to the plus-size. And as regular readers of this blog know, well...I think that's a fine, fine way for a women to look, no matter what kind of hate crimes against certain-sized women the media commits on a daily basis.


So let's celebrate Kurvey Khloe, and her sexy smarts:

And while we are at it....isn't this as good a time as any to celebrate Rule 5?

UPDATE 6-7-11:

Via The Other McCain, we see Khloe's....nipple. God bless FOX News:

Hateful Rhetoric: Joe Biden Leads With His Mouth

The unions, despite their ever-growing hostility and death threats, have not killed anybody. Yet. Despite the fact that most police departments have given them a wink and a turned head when the situation looks to turn ugly.

But how long will cooler heads prevail, when the Vice President of the United States is using rhetoric like this on a conference call - essentially a dog-whistle for the unions, in a pitch that clearly suggests that physical intimidation and assault is not only acceptable, but mandatory:

"You guys built the middle class," said Biden in a virtual town hall conversation hosted by the AFL-CIO. "I would just emphasize what Hilda [Solis] said and say it slightly different: We don't see the value of collective bargaining, we see the absolute positive necessity of collective bargaining. Let's get something straight: The only people who have the capacity -- organizational capacity and muscle -- to keep, as they say, the barbarians from the gate, is organized labor. And make no mistake about it, the guys on the other team get it. They know if they cripple labor, the gate is open, man. The gate is wide open. And we know that too."

The e-mail announcement for the call went out to labor activists, including members of the growing advocacy group Working America, and it pitched the call as a conversation with 100,000 supporters about "Republican assaults on collective bargaining in at least a dozen states." AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis joined Biden on the call, where listeners were also allowed to ask questions (although Biden had to leave before that portion).

Dopey Joe does at least have the honesty to admit to the unions - like a well-paid whore to her dominant, demanding client - that's he's their bitch, their slut, and he'll do anything (or allow them to do anything)they ask, as long as they keep paying him to do so:

"I've got to state the obvious," he said. "There's an old expression: 'You go home with them that brung you to the dance.' You guys all brought me to the dance 36 years ago in Delaware as a United States senator. You've been with me, and I've stayed with you."

"Hey, baby - for a few bucks I will pass any legislation you want. And I mean any..."

When the violence and class war that the Democrats have been stoking does erupt - and it will, but closer to the 2012 election, in an attempt to intimidate the electorate, Chavez-style - will Joe Biden accept the blame?

Perhaps the better question is whether the media will even assign him the blame? Or perhaps even a better question is, will he accept the credit for the forthcoming union violence from a media that has encouraged them to "push back hard"...

UPDATE: Well, how do you expect people to react, when the Vice President is telling folks that Republicans are just like rapists? Takes one to know one, Dopey Joe...

Dental Blogging....

....sorry for the uncharacteristic silence today, wound up needing some emergency dental work and am currently residing in la-la land. But when I reflect upon the experience....

Wednesday night - develop searing tooth pain
Thursday AM - call dentist, who says they can squeeze me in that day. I decline, having already committed to a day of work, offered an 8AM Friday appointment, which I gladly accept
Friday 805AM - in the chair, gagging on X-rays
Friday 9AM- dentist says she can't help me, I need a root canal, stat!
Friday 915A - dentist has obtained me a 10AM appointment with a specialist down the road.
Friday 10AM - the first of many shots of novacaine is administered
Friday 1145P - back in my Jeep and heading home, with a bit of a drool and a prescription for some Vicodin...

I wonder - under ObamaCare, do you really think I will be able to see a dentist at the drop of a hat, and have a specialist toss me into a chair on an hour's notice, thus saving a tooth, days of searing pain, and possibly secondary infections that would have required additional medical treatment?

Well...has anyone ever seen the Big Book of British Smiles?




Under Obamacare, this is what my future could have looked like - and what yours may very well be:

Amy Winehouse

Mick Jones of The Clash

Pete Doherty

Let's call them..."socialized smiles..."