Swedish Cartoonist Attacked By Muslim, Crowd Roars

Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist who dared draw a depiction of Muhammad, was attacked at a lecture by a Muslim man who "head butted" him to the ground before police "got involved".

And I use that term lightly, as getting involved seems to mean one cop spreading his arms wide, and another shouting "stop doing that! stop doing that!".

Note the upraised fists (especially of the man at the :33 second mark, who shouts his support for the attack, then picks up his child), and listen to the high-pitched shrieks of "Allah Akbar". Note the glee and support of the physical assault on free speech.

Animals.

The cartoon itself, no more than a pencil sketch, can be seen here. It's crude and offensive, I suppose, but they (especially Arabs, and Muslims) draw Jews like this every day of the week, and you don't see the people of Israel marauding through the Mideast, busting up lectures and beating up cartoonists. Nor do you see Christians wilding after the daily assaults on their religion, thought to be fair, they'd have to burn almost every mainstream media outlet in the nation if they wanted to even the score.

Although perhaps they should. What's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander, and after all, if this is now permissible behavior, people of all faiths should be allowed to engage in it.

No? Than perhaps the animals above should be civilized, or left out to rot in the desert hell they have created for themselves...

Elena Kagan and Barack Obama: Out Of Touch Elitists

Ben Smith from Politico:

President Barack Obama introduced Elena Kagan on Monday in the terms that have come to define his approach to the Supreme Court: She understands the law “as it affects the lives of ordinary people,” he said, adding that her presence will make the court “more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”

Obama promised judges with at least a passing knowledge of the “real world,” but Kagan’s experience draws from a world whose signposts are distant from most Americans: Manhattan’s Upper West side, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the upper reaches of the Democratic legal establishment.

Reflective of which people, exactly? Well-to-do Upper West Side graduates of places like New York's elite Hunter College HS? Princeton honor students? Oxford attendees? Harvard Deans? Or holier-than-thou New Yorkers, always a favorite of the American people?

If Elena Kagan is confirmed...the Supreme Court will contain three female Justices. And it will be a diverse group of women too -- one originally from Brooklyn, one originally from Manhattan, and one originally from the Bronx.

No, this is more of Obama's bullshit, of course. She is reflective of his people, the liberal elitists. Jen Rubin:

So she brings neither an abundance of non-elite experience nor an intellectual record of achievement...she’s not very real world, and she isn’t a renowned scholar, but she sure understands the president’s liberal agenda.

Which is why that I think any conservative optimism that she might be some sort of closet centrist is misguided. This is a woman who grew up in the dictionary definition of a "limousine liberal" neighborhood, and has gone to school with, worked with, and socialized with people who think exactly the way she does.

Without exception, and for her whole entire life. Can you imagine Ms. Kagan hanging out in a blue-collar bar in Pennsylvania, conversing with the hardhats and other varieties of "rough trade" about the way the world ought to be? Can you picture her casually chatting with military families in Texas, or with harried suburban moms in South Jersey? Can you envision her working shifts in Wal-Mart, or at a department store, or putting in the 90 minute commute to a high-stress office job in the city?

Me neither. Because it never happened. She's lived and worked in a small, insulated ivory tower her whole life, and from upon high, she will be appointed by Barack Obama to pass judgement upon us "ordinary people" based on her knowledge of the "real world".

May God have mercy upon the American people...

Justice Elena Kagan - Let The Abortions Begin!

Some are still fooling themselves into thinking that a Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagen would somehow be anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion. Just as they used to try to convince themselves (and others) that Barack Obama would govern "from the center".

Here's the sleight of hand:

As a White House adviser in 1997, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan urged then-President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions, a political compromise that put the administration at odds with abortion rights groups.

Same article gets to the truth further down:

...the memo is more of a political calculation than a legal brief, but Kagan and Reed urged Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.

"We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto," they wrote.

So Kagan's legal recommendations were based on political calculations. Just the kind of person you want on the highest court in the land, right? But more importantly, what would her legal calculations be at this moment? It's not that hard to figure out:

On April 21, 2010, President Obama used thinly veiled code language to communicate his clear intent to choose a nominee who would be hostile to legislative attempts to protect unborn humans. The President stated that he wanted someone “who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account . . . women’s rights,” and that this was going to be “very important” to him as he viewed our “core Constitution” as protecting the “bodily integrity” of women.

No doubt this was a conversation Kagan had with Obama, and she must have pleased the president (a man who favored, while in the Illinois State Senate, allowing aborted babies born alive to die, alone and in agony), or else he would have offered the position to another candidate, one more in line with his views.

And now that Kagan doesn't have to kiss up to the "centrist" Bill Clinton, she can act on how she really feels:

Ms. Kagan may have betrayed a possible personal animus towards the pro-life movement in a 1980 essay lamenting Republican gains in the 1980 election, in which she referred disparagingly to “victories of these anonymous but Moral Majority-backed [candidates] . . . these avengers of ‘innocent life’ and the B-1 Bomber . . ."
Was Ms. Kagan so dismissive of the belief that unborn children are members of the human family that she felt it necessary to put the term "innocent life" in quote marks, or does she have another explanation? Would she be able to set aside any animus she has towards those who fight to protect innocent human life, when reviewing laws duly enacted for that purpose?

Let the grinding of the abortion mills begin; for you will have a benefactor that supports your gruesome indifference towards human life upon the High Court...

Wither The American Jews?

Much has been made of this recent poll, showing that maybe, after getting smashed in the mouth a few dozen times, some American Jews may have second thoughts about voting for the anti-Semitic bully again:

US Jews polled were asked whether they would: (a) vote to re-elect Obama, or (b) consider voting for someone else. 42% said they would vote for Obama and 46%, a plurality, preferred the second answer. 12% said they did not know or refused to answer...

Can Obama overcome this issue with a "charm offensive"? It won't be for lack of trying, Hillary Clinton and other administration flacks are pumping hands at all the right fundraisers and conventions, saying all the right things ("For President [Barack] Obama, for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel's security and Israel's future is rock solid") while continuing to out-and-out threaten Israel if she refuses to comply with Barack Hussein's demands....from Commentary, here is State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issuing an unconcealed threat:

“As both parties know, if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue,” Crowley said.

Being that one party is excused for throwing bombs and the other is lambasted for building homes, can you guess which side will be "held accountable"?

The question is not whether the American Jewish community's loyalty to Israel is stronger than their loyalty to the Democrats, the question is whether their desire to live is greater than their loyalty to the Democrats. Because only someone who is insanely stupid, or suicidal, can claim that a man who consistently bashes their teeth in, then holds them down for others to gang-rape, is their friend. One who refuses to let go of that illusion is, again, either stupid or suicidal.

So which are the Jews? A little of both, I believe. Convinced that their faith commits them to the causes of the Democratic party binds them, despite the abuse they receive at their hands. And, like most liberals, my Jewish brethren are quite book-smart and well-read, but that doesn't necessarily translate into knowing what is the right thing to do to insure survival. Drop a highly-educated Jew (or any East Coast liberal) into the woods with Sarah Palin, and come back a week later, and what would you have? A well-fed Sarah with a new fur coat, and a dead liberal.

Remember, there were still plenty of Jews left in Germany for the SS to round-up, despite years of assurances from Adolf & Crew that they were dead meat. So smart they were, that when told to their faces they were to be slaughtered, they knew better than to believe it.

Vote against Barack? I'll believe it when I see it. They still cannot come to grips with the fact they have been abandoned, and cling to the Democrats like a child to a loveless parent. More likely is that they'll sit it out, which is a backdoor win for the Republicans. Sometimes, better to sit quietly on your hands than to act in ignorance and make quite the fool of yourselves, as 78% of my people did in November of 2008...

Related, from the Closet Conservative:

You cannot be a friend of the Jews and a friend of Israel and make a moral equivalence between Israel having nuclear weapons and Iran gunning for them...

8 Problems with Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan

A gay woman on the Supreme Court - well, that'll help Obama with two pissed-off constituencies, but what does it mean for America jurisprudence for the next half-century?

I'm lifting some of this from The Corner, that'll be the stuff in italics. The rest of the commentary is mine:

1- Kagan may well have less experience relevant to the work of being a justice than any justice in the last five decades or more. In addition to zero judicial experience, she has only a few years of real-world legal experience. Further, notwithstanding all her years in academia, she has only a scant record of legal scholarship. Kagan flunks her own “threshold” test of the minimal qualifications needed for a Supreme Court nominee.

Well, Obama failed the threshold test of the minimal qualifications needed for a presidential nominee, and got the job anyway. So how's that worked out for America?

2-Kagan is the consummate Obama insider, and her meteoric rise over the last 15 years—from obscure academic and Clinton White House staffer to Harvard law school dean to Supreme Court nominee—would seem to reflect...an “intermarriage of financial and executive branch elites [that] could only have happened in the Clinton years” and that has fostered the dominant financial-political oligarchy in America. In this regard, Kagan’s paid role as a Goldman Sachs adviser is the perfect marker of her status in the oligarchy—and of her unfathomable remoteness from ordinary Americans.

In other words, our lives will be controlled by yet another ivory-tower political elitist. Just what the doctor ordered for the Tea Party nation. Perhaps, though, that is exactly what Obama had in mind...

3- Kagan’s record thus manages to replicate the primary supposed defect of the judicial monastery—isolation from the real-world lives of ordinary Americans—without conferring the broader benefits of judicial experience.

That's a feature, not a bug, to the Democrats and the Obama administration.

4 - Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because...it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.” In her fervent opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Solomon Amendment, Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.

Which again, puts her directly in alignment with the Obama/Clinton/Pelosi mindset. And in opposition to about 75% of Americans. But when has this administration acted with regard to anyone save their 25%?

5 - Kagan has argued that the Senate should carefully explore a nominee's views on judicial philosophy generally and on hotly contested constitutional issues in particular. Her argument has special force for someone who has been so guarded about her own views.

Seems to me that Kagen has essentially claimed that the selection of a nominee like herself pretty much demands Congressional interrogation and high scrutiny before such a pick is confirmed. Let's see how our ivory-tower intellectual reacts to being subject to the practice to which she preached. Based on her own writings, less than full disclosure should result in a non-confirmation, or at least a filibuster attempt. A philosophical shift under fire would be quite revealing, and would expose her as a woman who cannot live under the very legal system she preaches. Should this occur, watch for the cries of... "homophobia!"

6 - Kagan’s records from her White House years in the Clinton administration promise to offer important insights into her legal thinking. It makes no sense to schedule her confirmation hearing until it’s clear when those records will be made available.

Since the Obama administration is supposed to be "the most transparent ever", this shouldn't be a problem, right? Hmmm....

7 - Kagan shows signs of moderation on issues of presidential power and national security. But there’s no basis for hopes that she might secretly harbor conservative legal views on other matters

Remember how many conservatives switched to Obama because they believed his lofty rhetoric and felt he'd have to "govern from the center"? Remember that, when the media and the RHINOs are telling you this pick is a "reverse Souter".

8 - From the New York Post, we get these revealing lines:

Kagen...grew up as a "cool smart girl" on the Upper West Side.
it would mark the first time in history the US Supreme Court has not had a Protestant member.
...a pivotal event in her life was getting into elite Hunter College HS.

Her formative years were spent in Manhattan, where she grew up as the middle child in a well-to-do Upper West Side family.
Kagan went on to earn honors at Princeton -- where she was a student leader, along with classmate Eliot Spitzer -- and won a scholarship that sent her to Oxford for a master's degree..

We couldn't find a credible nominee that didn't go to an Ivy League, or other elitist school? (and yes, that should be a badge of shame, being that the Ivy League has been running the nation, and our economy, for the past decade or more). We couldn't find one who wasn't born with a silver spoon in their mouth? We couldn't find one credible candidate anywhere in flyover country - From Pennsylvania to Utah - that, though liberal, might bring a different perspective of life, their nation, and the world to the High Court?

Nope. Another ivory-tower Ivy-league know-it-all, prepared to exclude themselves from the very laws they will force unto us.

Time to man the battlements, folks....

Despite The Spill, America Says, "Drill, Baby, Drill!"

Who knew the powers of Sarah Palin could transcend the space-time continuum, and that years after that fact, we would no longer be chanting "Yes, we can!", but instead heeding the advice of the prophetess of the Far North?

From a Daily Kos poll, no less:

Do you favor or oppose increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas?
Favor 60
Oppose 32
Not Sure 8

Does the recent Deep Horizon oil spill make you more or less likely to favor increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in U.S. coastal areas, or does it have no real effect on your point of view?
More likely 32
Less likely 13
No Effect 55

Guess the American people see that oil spill as a "one-off", or a "lone wolf" rig. Maybe we're smart enough to know that one setback should not cancel out an entire policy, which would make us smarter than Barack Obama and his entire administration, who have already subtly announced that the Obama plan to expand the amount of people allowed to consider thinking about possibly drilling for oil some day far in the future , far off the coastline is now dead.

Check this out:

Expanded drilling was popular across the board. Even among Democrats, a slight plurality continues to favor increasing offshore drilling (49-45).

Is common sense become a bipartisan feature of the electorate? If so, the Democrats are in even deeper sh*t than they realize...

Who Is...Riot Dog?

Has Karl Marx returned, in canine form? For while rioting may be a Greek way of life, it seems as if there is one cadre who is tougher than most, who never misses a fight, and who refuses to back down from the riot batons.

And he's a...dog. Riot Dog, they call him:

A mystery mutt has turned up at every major demonstration in Athens for the past two years and earned iconic status.

In recent photos he is seen showing solidarity with hooded rock-throwers and barking at cops in riot gear.

"What brings him to the riots? Does he believe in the overthrow of private ownership?" an admirer asked on Facebook.

Well I'll tell you, I have plenty of issue with the anarchist ass-clowns who populate the Greek Isles these days, but I gotta give props to that pup for fighting for what he believes in....whatever that may be. And he's no johnny-come-lately to the hardcore riot scene, he's been fighting the good fight against the "dogs" of capitalism for years. Some additional pictures of this mad-dog's street cred:

In the fog of tear gas and smoldering Molotov Cocktails, Riot Dog stands tall. He's so freakin' tough, he refuses to wear a gas mask!

Riot Dog, unlike many of his human counterparts, knows when it's time to get behind some cover...

With nothing to fear from "the pound" (Riot Dog knows where the hot bitches are at!), our hero faces the Euro-cops head-on. Look at them cower before the Dog of the People!

Riot Dog won't even give the police the satisfaction of running from them, as he slowly trots back towards the front lines, while enjoying a cool, cleansing shower from their capitalistic hoses...

"I wish my dog would stand up for what she believes in," a pet-loving blogger wrote....

So many speak of the fight for freedom, so few dare to risk it all. If Riot Dog was American he'd be a Marine; Semper Fidelis, always faithful to the cause (whatever the hell it is in Greece these days), and of course, First to Fight.

Can you respect the soldier without respecting the cause? If you can, I'm a fan..of Riot Dog.

His Facebook pic and profile:

DAMN, HAVE Y'ALL EVER SEEN A DOG SO DEDICATED TO THE CAUSE? BEEN SEEN IN RIOTS SINCE 2008. SHIT, THIS DOG IS LEGIT...

"Good Morning America" Jumps Into Bed With The Obama Administration...Literally

Now how do you think this will affect news of the economy on ABC's Good Morning America?

Obama budget big's fiancee named weekend GMA co-host

The planets are aligned just right for Bianna Golodryga lately. The ABC News correspondent, one of the best at covering the economy, got engaged in December to Barak Obama's budget director, Peter Orszag, who hid a 5-carat, cushion-cut diamond ring under her menu over lunch at Sarabeth's on Central Park South. Now she's been promoted to co-anchor of the weekend edition of "Good Morning America," joining Bill Weir.


Can you imagine if the FOX News "terrorism expert" was married to the chief of Homeland Security? Oooh, the howling that would emanate from the left! But I suppose it's OK for Bianna to roll out of bed with Peter Orzag, slip on her 5-carat diamond ring, and then go on national TV to "report" on the economy.

If there was any sense of transparency in the media, there would be a disclaimer before any Bianna Golodryga reports involving financial matters.

Yes, I know, that's a joke. But it seems that again ABC is trying to curry favor with the Obama administration by putting their personal partisan favorites (be it Bianna or the hideously anti-Semitic Christiane Amanpour ) in a position to report positively on the Democratic agenda...

Obama Skips Jersey To Look For Oil From Up High

Well, fellow New Jerseyans, expect Obama to be cancelling a lot of trips to New Jersey in the upcoming months; after all, it's well known he avoids red states like the plague...

But this is an interesting, out-of-the-ordinary story from the LA Times; it goes through how Barack Obama cancelled his May 5th trip to New Jersey in order to tout the recovering economy (maybe he got a sneak peak at today's 9.9% unemployment rate?) in order to detour to Louisiana to prevent a personal image issue:

Instead of being an opportunity to advance Obama's economy argument, suddenly that already-announced midweek New Jersey trip loomed as potential proof to critics that the boss wasn't paying adequate attention to this real environmental crisis in a region notoriously quick to loudly blame others for its disasters and local lack of preparation.

New Jersey was canceled, though locals didn't learn until Saturday afternoon and the White House announcement was delayed until Sunday.

A Louisiana trip was laid on for Sunday....

The president was also seen taking off for a disaster scene tour in a chopper. But winds were such and the threat of fog possible that the president only saw the ordinary Louisiana coast.

After all that travel, logistics and talk, he never spotted one drop of oil.

The good news for him is twofold: He was seen caring about the incident.
And he wasn't seen looking uselessly out a plane window as Bush was. [and for more on the picture to your left, see here: Obama's amazing ability to feign interest in stuff ]

Aides were quick to describe how useful the tour was for Obama to see something for himself. He did get out the main message-quote about BP being responsible for every dime, even though there's a $75 million limit on a causative party's costs.

Local officials were quoted as appreciative of his presence which, truth be told, did absolutely nothing to stop the oil, advance the recovery or mitigate any damage beyond that potentially to the president's image if he hadn't gone.

So Obama cancelled New Jersey, where he was to try to protect himself from economic criticism, to fly over Louisiana, in order to protect himself from environmental criticism.

As the above story points out, with Barack Obama, it's never about reality - unemployment continues to climb, the market continues to plummet, oil continues to gush, the slick gets longer and wider - it's only about other people's perception...of him.

Hint to the president: All the photo-op flyovers in the world won't save you or your party when unemployed folks get caked in oil when they try to forget their worries at the beach.

And thanks, Baracky, for skipping out on Jersey. We get enough amateur bullsh*t spewed at us from Trenton that we don't need to pay a hundred cops double-OT just to get a sprayful from you as well...

"Every Obama critic is a Wall Street stooge"

...when they're not racists, that is. From the Wall Street Journal:

Last Saturday at the University of Michigan, President Obama noted the importance of maintaining "a basic level of civility in our public debate." He added, "You can question somebody's views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism."
You certainly can, but it seems Mr. Obama cannot.

Less than a week after promoting the need to treat others ‘with courtesy and respect,’ the unhappy warrior was at it again yesterday with a misleading attack on the motives of an opponent. Responding to an amendment offered by Senator Richard Shelby to limit the scope of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Mr. Obama said, ‘I will not allow amendments like this one written by Wall Street’s lobbyists to pass for reform.’

Out of all the "benefits" that an Obama presidency failed to deliver to us - racial harmony, bipartisanship, a "new tone in Washington", no tax hikes, "smart diplomacy", new-found world respect - perhaps the biggest deception was this: Barack Obama was a man of extraordinarily high intelligence.

For he has shown nothing that would demonstrate any of the usual trademarks of the smarter- than-average man; in fact, his most visible characteristics - stubbornness, intellectual inflexibility, unwillingness to change course in the face of facts, condensation towards those who do not share his beliefs, nastiness, blatant falsehoods, and a chip on the shoulder - are usually seen as the trademarks of a man of lesser intellect.

And thus we see the reason for his non-stop personal attacks on his critics. Barack Obama is simply unable to make intelligent, fact-based arguments that back his cause. He clearly lacks the intellectual heft to make cognizant arguments in defense of his policies and against those of his political adversaries. To my knowledge, he has never made an a "case" for a particular policy position that stood up to any reasonable interpretation of the facts involved.

So, unable to outsmart his rivals, Barack Obama turns schoolyard bully, and resorts to taunts, smears, and lies in front of adoring crowds of similar idiots; their raucous cheers act in the stead of facts to convince him of the utter righteousness of his position.

So expect nothing to change. This intellectual lightweight will continue in attack mode for the duration of his presidency; it is the only way he can put points on the board. The American people have already long grown tired of his act and will fire his enablers in Congress this November, but we are stuck with this left-wing mush-brain until 2012. May God have mercy on the United States of America.

Incidentally, is it any surprise at all that his grades at Harvard are shrouded in secrecy? Imagine the shame of the Ivy League that they graduated (yet another) D student; imagine the glee of the world's despots when they realize they are treating with a man-child...

Amnesty For Illegals? Well, Isn't VAT a Coincidence?

From The Hill:

Democrats want immigration reform on the table as the White House fiscal commission examines ways to reduce deficits, saying there is a “credible connection” between the issue and the country’s fiscal situation. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern and Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), both Democrats on the bipartisan fiscal commission, said reforms giving the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States a chance to stay in the U.S. legally could boost the economy and thereby help pay down the debt.

In a letter sent Monday to the commission’s co-chairmen, Stern listed “comprehensive immigration reform” as one of six issues he wants the commission to address, along with entitlements, retirement security, the budget process, defense spending and the tax code.
“Our current set of circumstances has 12 million people working in this country and not maximizing their contributions to the economy,” Stern told The Hill.

No wonder Obama wanted this union hack on his "deficit commission". No doubt this entire agenda - amnesty for 12 million illegals, slashing defense spending, raising taxes ("the tax code") was discussed and approved by Obama prior to Stern being named to the panel. And no doubt, these items are all high on Obama's list of things that need Change, but even the One Who Walks on Water knows that politically, he can't all this done himself. But if it is done under the smokescreen of "reluctantly taking the advice of a bi-partisan fiscal commission"....

And imagine, if instead of throwing out 12 million folks who entered this country illegally, we allow them all to stay, and tax the living sh*t out of them? Wouldn't VAT help the deficit!

Via Protein Wisdom:

Getting rid of the underground economy by enforcing federal illegal immigration law? Not on the table.
A “credible connection” between illegal immigration, the underground economy, and entitlements to law breakers that overtax resources and drive up costs? Not found.

To which I will add "Getting rid of an ill-conceived health care "reform" bill that all studies now show will actually cost way more than it will ever save? Not on the table...."

Problem for Obama, of course, is that the scam is just about up, nobody will take him seriously if he urges Congress to implement the final pieces of a hard-core leftist agenda under the guise of "bi-partisanship", not based on the hateful, divisive way he has governed (if you wish to call it that), and the out of control spending programs he has enacted which also, of course, are "not on the table" of the fiscal commission.

Too late on this one, Baracky. If only you had compromised somewhere down the road, you may have had a chance to pull this scam off. That's what happens when you get greedy too early on in the game...

Lame Duck Congress Gone Wild?

Picture the scenario: The Democrats get their collective clocks cleaned in November, losing control of the House and seeing their Senate control down to perhaps one seat, if even that. With the knowledge that their "progressive" agenda is dead, for perhaps a generation, what do they do? Bow to the will of the American people and go out gracefully?

Mickey Kaus, blogger and renegade primary challenger to Senate Boxer, expounds on a different tactic the lame-ducks Dems might take:

Fred Barnes raises the possibility of a "mad duck" Congress, in which Democrats lose their majorities and their soon-to-be-ex Congressmen reconvene in December to pass all the most controversial parts of the Democratic agenda, including an immigration bill and a VAT, before they lose power. ... It seems implausible and paranoid, but how, exactly, could it be stopped?

The new laws would be hard to repeal while Obama is in office--if they could ever be repealed. (Once you legalize illegal immigrants, can you re-illegalize them again? I doubt it. The change seems irreversible.) ... The only sure solution to Mad Duckism that I can see is for the Republicans to not win too big, leaving at least a substantial number of Dems with something left to lose.

**Alert reader J. suggests "an all-out filibuster" would stop a mad-duck legislating binge. Not if the legislation can be put in the form of "reconciliation" bills--and I would think a VAT would qualify because of its obvious budgetary impact. ...

From the aforementioned Barnes article:

Should Democrats suffer a landslide defeat, their large majorities would still be in place for the lame-duck session. What would Democrats who'd been defeated for re-election have to lose by voting for a VAT? Not much.

If the Democrats voted for health-care reform, knowing it sealed their fate, do you think they really care who they take down with them as their careers go down in flames? Specifically, would they really be concerned about bringing the entire totality of the American people down with them, being that these very same people - rednecks, clingers, dumb-asses, and racists, all - cost them their cushy, powerful job?

Is it really unthinkable that they would glorify in a Hitler-esque bunker death, ordering the nation to be destroyed rather than be captured by the dreaded conservatives? Not based on their recent behavior...

Let's use the word "generation" again. Should they embark upon a "burn the village" lame-duck strategy, that's about how long it would take for the Democrats to regain the trust of the American people (or realistically, how long it would take them to forget their misdeeds while in power). Leave with dignity, perhaps it might take a mere few election cycles.

But how much grace and dignity have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid show since they were handed the reins of power? That's what worries me, and that's what makes the lame-duck mad-duck hypothesis so eerily plausible...

Ezra Klein Plumbs The Depths of Stupidity

I never bother much with the nonsense of Ezra Klein, a lefty blogger who works for the Washington Post or thereabouts. I've seen him give other conservatives fits, but to me he's nothing more than a kid who has a way with fancy prose, but much less skill in the realm of logical, coherent thought.

Sounds like a certain president I know....

Anyway, I note a post by Ezra today in the WaPo only because it so typifies the liberal way of thinking in a way so few other pieces really can. I'll reprint it here, in full:

Annie Lowrey catches something unexpected: The arrested subject of last weekend’s Times Square bomb plot is a homeowner in the midst of foreclosure. Here's MSNBC:

[Faisal Shahzad] defaulted on a $200,000 mortgage on his Connecticut home and the Shelton property is now in foreclosure, according to court records. The foreclosure records show Faisal Shahzad took out the mortgage in 2004, and that he co-owned the home with a woman named Huma Mian. Chase Home Finance LLC sued Shahzad, 30, in September to force the foreclosure. The case is pending in Milford Superior Court.

This guy is like string theory for the media: He brings together the seemingly incompatible stories that drove the past decade. That said, you of course don't want to speculate on why someone "really" did something. The hearts of men are opaque, and motives are complex. But it's a reminder that foreclosures generate an enormous amount of misery and anxiety and depression that can tip people into all sorts of dangerous behaviors that don't make headlines but do ruin lives. And for all that we've done to save the financial sector, we've not done nearly enough to help struggling homeowners.

The hearts of men are opaque??? Let's see, son - he's a Muslim who hated Bush and the Iraq war, who trained in Pakistan and tried to kill hundreds of innocent civilians as revenge for Predator drone strikes in Pakistan. What the f*ck is opaque about that, kid?

The problem for Klein is threefold: Repeated attacks by Muslims on American civilians undermines their theory that if we only made nice to them, the Islamists would love us. Secondly, since Shahzad has pointedly referred to the Predator drone strikes, the Kleins fear that liberal's ultimate anti-war argument can now be used against them: Fighting terrorists creates more terrorists. In this case, it is specifically Obama's war strategy that almost killed hundreds of New Yorkers last week.

Finally, Klein, like most of the Left, had already decided that the bomber had to be a teabagging, right-wing nut. After all, didn't Obama and Clinton and the New York Times all declare that the Tea Party's unthinkable desire to oppose Obama was virtually sedition and was fated to lead to violence? This was the proof that the better thinkers were once again correct!

Actually, it was proof that our elite was once again incorrect about the world around us. But when Ezra Klein and the Left decide the reality they live in just won't conform to their preconceived notions, rather than re-examine their thought processes, they seek to change reality.

The Ft. Hood shooter wasn't a crazy jihadi, he suffered from PTSD despite never serving in combat. 9/11 had to be an inside job, or perpetuated by the Israelis. And the almost-bombing of Times Square had nothing to do with the Muslim suspect's confession that it was all about the Predators, it had to be something else. Like...home foreclosures! Yeah, that's the ticket!

But it seems as if Klein's readers are a bit smarter than he is. A sample of the commentary:

Oh please. I'm sure if i'm plotting a bombing and intending to flee the country, paying my bills would be the top of my to do list.
besides, wasn't he in pakistan for a few months? Guess he forgot to sign up for his bank's auto-bill pay feature.

Was the guy a Muslim? Because, unless I've missed something, that tends to be the common factor in recent terrorist plots. Not home foreclosures.

The, I'm in foreclosure so I'll go blow something up theory? Where are all the terrorists (homegrown or otherwise) before this? This is your weakest argument ever.
I'm thinking Nevada or Michigan would have been hit harder than Times Square because there are many more foreclosures there. but hmmm. no.

I wonder, Ezra, do you think the radicals of oh, a certain community, hate you any less for co-cooking up this unsolicited defense on their behalf? I bet ya do, don't ya? Nope-you appear as stupid to them as you do everyone else that read this comedy piece.
Stay tuned for Ezra's next piece on why bees sting people!

...But for him [Ezra] to suggest that American taxpayers should be covering the mortgages of terrorists to keep them happy is shameful.
Are you certain this article was not meant for theonion.com?

OK Ezra, I've wasted just enough virtual ink on your inanity. Shame on the WaPost for giving a child a place to spew such silliness.

Actually, I have heard more coherent arguments from an eight-year old on why they should have another cookie before bedtime.....

Robert Gibbs Freaks As Gulf Oil Spill Conspiracy is Unveiled!

...by Mike "Brownie" Brown, of all people, on FOX News the other night:

Michael Brown, former President George W. Bush's infamous FEMA chief, claimed yesterday that President Obama is using the Gulf oil spill to play politics. And he went further: he said Obama waited for the oil spill to worsen so he could shut down offshore drilling.

"This is exactly what they want, because now he can pander to the environmentalists and say, 'I'm gonna shut it down because it's too dangerous,'" Brown told Fox's Neil Cavuto. "This president has never supported Big Oil, he's never supported offshore drilling, and now he has an excuse to shut it back down."

Yeah, exactly what I have been saying for a week now. Glad to have you on board, Brownie. Heckuva job!

And in "the lady protests too much, methinks" files, we see Robert Gibbs lose any sense of professionalism he ever had and absolutely flipping out on a FOX news reporter over these seemingly innocuous remarks:

Outraged, Gibbs singled out the network for airing an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory spun by President Bush’s FEMA director, Mike "Brownie" Brown.

As [Fox News correspondent Wendell] Goler tried to calm Gibbs down, the press secretary began talking about "the special and unique interview with Michael Brown, who for those who weren’t let in on the big secret ... intimated on Fox and it wasn’t – didn’t appear -- to be pushed back on real hard — that this spill was leaked on purpose in order for us to undo decisions."

Goler tried to differentiate between the network's news operation and its columnists, but Gibbs would have none of it."You should call headquarters," he told Toler, and talk to "whoever makes the decision to put people like that on."

What a whining little pussy. But more about that some other day. If this story was really complete and total BS, as Gibbs is trying to make it seem, why the ballistic attack? Why not just ignore it and let Brownie be dismissed as just another right-wing nut, a whackjob, a...teabagger? Why draw additional attention to these remarks if only to condemn them?

I'll tell you why. Because 'ol Brownie finally did something right, and hit upon a truth: That this oil spill was the perfect "out clause" for Obama's decision to expand the amount of people allowed to consider thinking about possibly drilling for oil some day far in the future , far off the coastline.

A little too perfect, perhaps? A little to coincidental, maybe? So even if Obama didn't blow the damn rig sky-high to serve his political aims (and if George W. Bush could destroy the Twin Towers and kill thousands of Americans to gain additional oil, why couldn't Obama kill a dozen or so Americans to choke off the supply of the hated brown goo?), perhaps he simply smiled when he heard about the disaster (realizing how it could play to his advantage), put his feet up on the desk, and remarked, "Terrible thing, that oil spill. Get back to me in a few days and let me know how it looks, wouldja? I got a few rounds to play..."

Heckuva job, Baracky.

Gulf Coast Oil Spill Conspiracy: "Never Waste a Crisis" Edition

Now that the oil spill from BP's offshore rig is about to lap the Louisiana coastline, the Democrats have finally leaped into action (guess Obama finally gave them them sign that it is OK to unfold the final part of the conspiracy). No, not to help the coastline, silly, but to legislate against the Sons of Satan themselves, Big Oil:

Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez (N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.) intend to introduce a bill Monday increasing the economic liability cap for offshore oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion in response the the Gulf of Mexico disaster, according to a release.

Well, that'll show that oil slick!

Look, the sum of these three guy's intelligence doesn't equal that of one bona fide village idiot, but now that the Obama administration has created this crisis and is allowing it to play out, the Party must do it's job and not waste this opportunity to pass draconian legislation in a self-perpetuated climate of fear. If the Menendez (D-La Raza) bill passes, the oil companies will have to look at their statistics and say, "OK, so a spill happens every ten years, the government will now milk us for $10B each time, so we need to impose and spread out price increases that will total this amount so that we have a kitty to pay for this statistical eventuality..."

How much is that gonna cost you? Enough to turn you off to oil, and finally hop on the magic carpet that Obama has been assuring you is right around the corner...? By the way, BP has already agreed to foot the entire tab for the clean-up, so it was not as if they were pulling a Mr. Burns here...

That's the game, folks. Support drilling, take some flack from your own side and appear "bi-partisan". Blow up the rig, sit back and do nothing while the spill grows in size, and use the hysterical coverage as a smoke screen to renege on your vow to expand drilling, while simultaneously pleasing your base by imposing even more draconian legislation on the oil industry.

And why does their seem to be such an increase in coal mine disasters as well? Coincidence, I'm sure...

OK, so my tongue is kind of "in-cheek" right now. But with this crew of deceptive half-wits in DC, I am inclined to believe almost anything...

Ignorant Leadership: Times Square Terror Edition

With the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen from Pakistan, in connection with the attempted Times Square bombing, it's a good moment to look back at what some key New York politicians were saying in the aftermath of the (thankfully) non-event.

Let's start with New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg:

Bloomberg told CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric that the suspect behind the bombing attempt could be a domestic terrorist angry at the government who acted alone. "If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything," he said.

In other words, Hizzoner's guess was that this was the work of a ...teabagger. Methinks the Mayor spends too much time reading the op-ed pages of the New York Times and needs to get out more. Then again, why would our multi-billionaire only bet $0.25 on his supposition? Maybe he didn't want to risk his fortune on on a bad guess?

Equally insightful is New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who has worked hand-in-hand with Barack Obama to destroy New York City (which would lead tot he collapse of the entire state fifteen minutes later). His remarks:

"The odds are quite high that this was a lone wolf.... "

I say the odds are quite high that you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about. As usual.

And from the woman who is running the show, Janet Napolitano:

Janet Napolitano, appeared on the NBC News program “Meet the Press” and said, “You know, at this point I have no information that it’s anything other than a one-off.”

Just think...these people are in charge of protecting you, your children, your families, your loved ones. Chilling.

And wait until this crew comes knocking on the door, with big smiles, saying "Congratulations! We are going to try 9/11 mastermind KSM in downtown Manhattan! But have no fears, we can assure you that it will be perfectly safe..."

South Park-Hating "Revolution Muslim" Leader Just Happened To Be In Times Square Saturday Night...

Yeah, it's just a coincidence that the car bomb parked in Times Square was actually parked right next to the offices of Comedy Central parent company Viacom. And it's just a coincidence that Younus Abdullah Muhammed, who runs the web site RevolutionMuslim - the one that made veiled death threats after "South Park" dared to reference the Islamic prophet Muhammed in a recent episode - happened to be in Times square just around the time the car bomb was to go off.

Via JWF:

A Queens Islamic group that warned the creators of "South Park" of retaliation for lampooning the Prophet Muhammed denied involvement Sunday in the Times Square bomb plot.

Younus Abdullah Muhammed, who runs the Web site RevolutionMuslim.com, said he was in Times Square at the time the car bomb was discovered, but he insisted he was not involved in the botched bombing.

"What do you think, I commanded somebody to blow up a building in the middle of Times Square?" a testy Muhammed told the Daily News.

NYPD detectives are looking into whether the attempted bombing is linked to a warning issued last month by the Revolution Muslim group against the Comedy Central animators.Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said detectives have not ruled out a connection between the Queens group and the Saturday terror scare outside the headquarters of Viacom, which owns Comedy Central."

It had nothing to do with the 'South Park' controversy. It was not an attack targeting Viacom," Muhammed said. He said he was on 42nd St. and Broadway in Times Square about 6:30 p.m. Saturday - just about the time a bomb-packed SUV was found on 45th St. and Broadway.

How the hell does our "testy Muhammed" know who or what the attack was targeting? Why was he in Times Square at that particular day at that particular time? Was he looking to shoot some video, perhaps, of the ensuing chaos after a car bomb explosion, for website posting? Would make our Muhammed look like quite the prophet, so to speak....

Even if RevolutionMuslim did not physically plant the SUV-bomb, one certainly could claim they were the inspiration for it. And in that case, where are the liberal columnists, the Democratic leadership, and ex-President Bill Clinton, all who have been wagging their crooked fingers at the tea party rallies and warning that their "rhetoric can have dangerous results"?

Will they take on RevolutionMuslim for their incendiary words that almost caused an incendiary explosion at the crossroads of the world? Or will they turn their heads, pretend not to see it, and order the SWAT teams to take out granny, Betty Sue, and that kid carrying the Gadsden flag...?

"Be on the lookout for a balding white man..." Does Younus Muhammed qualify? Or is that profiling?

Times Square Terrorism: Retribution for "South Park"?

Here are the facts as they currently stand:

Authorities on Sunday are continuing to investigate a failed car bombing at New York City’s Times Square on Saturday evening. Governor Paterson called it an ‘act of terrorism.’The incident started at 6.34 p.m. EDT on Saturday when a t-shirt vendor alerted a mounted police officer to a suspicious dark green Nissan Pathfinder that had been parked at 45th Street near Broadway with its lights flashing. The officer noticed smoke coming from objects in the backseat of the car and smelled gunpowder. He then called in additional resources, including the fire department.

It is unclear who was driving the SUV, which had a license plate that did not match the vehicle, and no arrests were made as of early Sunday. Officials said the vehicle was seen driving west on 45th Street at 6.28 p.m. EDT in security camera footage. Additional footage from security cameras is being sought.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the car contained three propane tanks, consumer-grade fireworks, two filled 5-gallon gasoline containers, and two clocks with batteries, electrical wire and other components. A black metal box resembling a gun locker was also recovered.

“We avoided what could have been a very deadly event,” said Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a press conference near the scene of the incident. He described the bomb as being ‘amateurish.’

Well, terrorists are never known for their professionalism (even the 9/11 bombers were most often seen boozing it up in local New Jersey nudie bars), nor judged on it, only by the number of innocent people they kill. And has this "amateurish" bomb gone off in the early evening at the busiest crossroads in the known universe, well, it would have been considered pretty damn "professional" by the folks tasked with scraping the body parts of the pavement. So please, Mr. Mayor, no false platitudes or lies to make me feel safer. The fact that you are already trying to blow smoke around this makes me feel less safe - much, much less safe.

But let's get to the "why" of this attempted slaughter. Just the random killing of Americans to avenge Guantanamo, the Iraqi War, the Afghanistan War, or to show displeasure with the slow pace of the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process"? (that's Obama's favorite,by the way).

Maybe. But let's check that location again. Broadway and 45th street? Who has their corporate headquarters in that location? Why, Viacom, interestingly enough. The same Viacom who owns Comedy Central. The same Comedy Central that airs South Park. The same South Park which had an episode referencing Muhammad. An episode that was then censored to Comedy Central in order to avoid offending psychotic Islamists.



View Larger Map

So how'd that work out for you?

If there is any lesson that should be learned here by the entertainment industry, it is that bending to the sensitivities of Islamists will not deter them, only embolden them. Of course, there is virtually no doubt the industry will take the exact opposite course, and pre-emptively ban any speech that might be deemed offensive to Muslims, thus handing them a tremendous propaganda victory as well as de facto control of free speech in the United States of America. Which will,of course, lead to more instances like the aborted terrorist attack in Times Square, as the demands of the Muslim radicals increase with their power.

The problem for Viacom, the media, and politicians is that if history over the last six months or so have taught them anything, it is that Americans do not like to have their freedoms stripped from them. How will they respond to a list of words that now must not be spoken on TV/radio/films under threat of Islamist vengeance.

My guess? Not to well. And the politicians who abdicate their freedoms out of fear, and the entertainment companies that censor their products out of cowardice, will feel the brunt of the people's rage.

And the next time you see a Hollywood celebrity pat themselves on the back for their "courage"? Spit in their faces, unless they are Trey Parker and Matt Stone...

Has Obama Been Cheating On Michelle?

OK, it's the National Inquirer, and we all know that they're just a scandal rag, right? Remember when they made up that whole story about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter and a love child? So false, because a guy like Edwards would never cheat on his cancer-stricken wife while using her as proof of his superior compassion! That would be...well, wait...that would be....true.

So let's give fair consideration to this report from the Inquirer:

President Obama has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

A top DC source told The ENQUIRER exclusively that the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

The ENQUIRER has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided.

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."

If true, would this ruin Obama's presidency? Not a chance. If Bill Clinton could engage in sex acts in the Oval Office and have the entire liberal/media establishment jump to his defense, imagine the rush to the battlements should this president be caught with his golf pants down. In fact, a Barack Obama sex tape would probably become part and parcel of every liberal porno collector's stash from the Beltway to Broadway, and proudly shown at Democratic fund raisers ("ooh, have you ever seen a more perfect, vibrant, intelligent lover?") while being embedded in the Organizing for America's web site.

Why do I think this story is true? Because men of power feel they are entitled to multiple lovers (see Woods, Tiger), that they can never be caught (see Spitzer, Elliot), and they multiple lovers are just another perk of a government job.

Would Michelle leave him? Not a chance. She, like Hillary, has her own future tied up with her man's, and no amount of personal humiliation will curb her ambitions.

Well, this is what you get, when you dismiss serious thinkers and elect a rock star as president...

Gulf Coast Oil Spill: An Obama-Directed Conspiracy?

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but....OK, well, that's a lie. I love them. I don't obsess over them, but I like putting them out there just to see how it plays.

And the recent oil spill off the Gulf Coast has so many implications - political, economic, and yeah, environmental - that one has to wonder if the hand of a man who is so much smarter than the rest of us is behind it, manipulating us in order to achieve the result he wanted in the first place.

First, Jim Geraghty:

President Obama announces a change in national policy on offshore drilling, and 20 days later a platform explodes, creating an environmental disaster that, we’re told, may be worse than the Exxon Valdez. That’s timing so perfect it’s usually associated with Abbott and Costello. There are a lot of folks who passionately opposed the possibility of expanded offshore drilling and who would have the motive to help “enable” an accident that discredited the policy.

And it appears as if the "maybe, possibly, someday we might think about drilling" policy has already been tossed under the bus:

There will be no new domestic offshore oil drilling pending a review of the rig disaster and massive oil spill along the Gulf Coast, the White House said Friday morning. Speaking on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” senior adviser David Axelrod said “no additional [offshore] drilling has been authorized, and none will until we find out what happened and whether there was something unique and preventable here. … No domestic drilling in new areas is going to go forward until there is an adequate review of what’s happened here and of what is being proposed elsewhere.”

The administration recently announced that it would open new coastal areas to oil exploration, including regions off Virginia’s coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, ending a long moratorium on new drilling.

So much for Obama reaching out to the "drill, baby, drill" crowd. Jennifer Rubin knows where this is heading:

So now even the fig leaf of bipartisanship is gone. And that “review,” one can bet, will be just as slow as the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell review...

So when gasoline prices rise to $8- a gallon, "fueled" by shortages and cap & trade levies, a serious-looking Barack Obama can claimed he was open to the whole "drilling" idea, but the Great Gulf Spill of 2010 proves that oil is a thing of the past, and that we must spend trillions in subsidies for "green" energy, such as solar panels, windmills, and magic carpets.

Your SUV, unfortunately, is a menace to the well being of the People's States of America. So kiss it goodbye, and pack your family into a subsidized Government Motors-brand of subcompact "smart"cars! They may not run well, and they may be deathtraps, but really - isn't your death the ultimate reduction of your carbon footprint? What could be more loyal, more patriotic...?

Finally, there is this odd CBS report:

Mr. Obama said SWAT teams were being dispatched to the Gulf to investigate oil rigs and said his administration is now working to determine the cause of the disaster.

SWAT teams?? I wonder....


Update: Mark Levin wonders “Why did it take President Obama 8 days to do anything regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?”

Well, you need to create a crisis, before you can declare that "you can't waste a crisis..."

UPDATE II: Rush Limbaugh has a theory:

But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig?

There's a flaw in Limbaugh's thinking process here, and that's assuming liberal activists are smart enough to...think. Remember, these are the same people who are fighting Arizona's tough new immigration laws by boycotting Arizona Iced Tea, proudly made in...Brooklyn.

This kind of plot takes government smarts to pull off. Admittedly, that's not a lot of brainpower either...


(More on this vile conspiracy here, here, here, over here, and here, and most recently here, you should definitely read this, and this is somewhat related as well...)