ABC Runs Interference For Barack Obama

Personally, I think the NFL analogy works best as a definition here:

...the act of a teammate or of teammates running ahead of a ball-carrier and blocking prospective tacklers out of the way.

Gee, what's in the news today that would require "interference"? Oh, yeah, the cancelled Keystone pipeline project, in which Barack Obama sacrificed 20,000 jobs, our national security, and the likelihood of reduced oil prices - while simultaneously pushing Canada into a closer relationship with China - all in order to placate a small but wealthy group of Democratic donors.

The media can't let their teammate get sacked, Lord no, not with the end zone only ten months away, and a swarm of Republican tacklers swarming down the field to lay some pipe up the president's ass. So ABC sacrifices the body, and runs interference:

Newt Gingrich lacks the moral character to serve as President, his second ex-wife Marianne told ABC News, saying his campaign positions on the sanctity of marriage and the importance of family values do not square with what she saw during their 18 years of marriage.

In her most provocative comments, the ex-Mrs. Gingrich said Newt sought an "open marriage" arrangement so he could have a mistress and a wife.

She said when Gingrich admitted to a six-year affair with a Congressional aide, he asked her if she would share him with the other woman, Callista, who is now married to Gingrich.....

And that's the last we'll hear about the Keystone Pipeline.  But you can bet when the Republicans pin the blame on Barack Obama for the non-recovery of his first term, the media will be the first to run to his defense, claiming that he "inherited the problems", and that he "can't fully control the economy", while repeating the false-on-its-face claim that he saved us all from another Great Depression.

ABC:  A Wholly Owned Subsidiarity of the Democratic National Committee?  Oh, you betcha....

Man, I wish Jack Tapper would ditch this chickenshit "news" operation....

Barack Obama Lays Some Pipe(line) To The American People

...but only in the crude, euphemistic sense. Sayeth the Urban Dictionary:

...laying pipe is simply f**king the hell out of a girl.

But in this case, Barack Obama simply continued his rape of the economy while simultaneously screwing the American worker.  That's a lot for one man in one day, so one can certainly say the president laid pipe to us, but good..

But this is no surprise.  He told us back in December he was gonna f*ck us good, and we would be the better for it.  Because his favorite position for the American people is on their knees:

"However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

Barack Obama wants us bitches at home, living in squalor, awaiting what meager crumbs he tosses us, and repaying his generosity by...

Well, you know....

Viewing Tim Tebow From Down Under

...and learning that liberals in the Southern Hemisphere are equal to, or greater than, their douchebag brethren here in the USA.

Peter FitzSimons from the Sydney Daily Herald:

ONE-KNEED FANS

''Tebowing''. This new word in the American lexicon refers, no kidding, to people who kneel on one knee with head bowed - a la Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow - every time they want to thank their god for allowing them to do something so fabulous on the sports field. The closest Australian word is probably ''public wankery''.

A view also held by American Left, who are too cowardly to come out and say it, preferring to snipe from the sidelines like the perennial bench-warmers that they are.

What a wanker...

I like the phrase "their god" (small "g").  Not his, FitzSimon assures us. Which reminds me of a part of the Passover Seder, where  four metaphorical sons of differing temperament ask questions about the ritual meal:

The Torah spoke about four sons, one wise, one wicked, one simple and one who cannot formulate a question....

What does the wicked son say? "What does this Avodah (worship) mean Lakhem (to you)"? "To you" [meaning] and "not to him". Since he excluded himself from the community, he has denied the basic principle. You should also set his teeth on edge and say to him: "It is on account of this that Hashem did for me when I left Egypt" "for me" and not "for him" - had he been there, he would not have been redeemed.

FitzSimons, in mocking Tebow and "his" God, excludes himself from one community and closets himself within the cold embrace of another. He's entitled, of course. But should he ever need to look up to heaven and ask "please", well...he should not be surprised if "their" God does not recognize his cry...

SOPA & PIPA, And a Nation Hanging In The Balance...

Every time Congress meets, and with every bit of legislation they pass, the American people lose a little more of their freedom.  Regardless of who controls it, BTW...

Proponents of SOPA say it is a necessity in the cyber-age, a must-have to protect intellectual copyright.  Taking a broad look at the proposal, we can see the vagueness written into it, like a huge black hole between the lines -  a hole where our usage of the internet as we know it will almost certainly disappear.  As will our freedom, and our identity as a nation.  From the one page of Wikipedia that is up today:

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

How far can this be stretched? As far as the government wants it. And that remains true no matter who is in charge.

Over at Ricochet, Daniel Frank asks an interesting question:

As PIPA and SOPA make their way through the cloaca of the legislative process, I pause to wonder why Congress is only interested in protecting private property when it belongs to Hollywood studios, media companies, and publishing houses? What about the property rights of the Chrysler bondholders, or of property owners brushed aside by eminent domain, or the small businessperson shaken down by lawyers wielding Federal private action statutes?

Those rights, once enshrined in law, have now become arbitrary. And arbitrary law is the hallmark of the banana republic. Frank quotes Duke Economists Mike Munger:

Federal IP protection statutes are entirely motivated by and written for the benefit of rent seeking corporations. Congressmen and Senators don't care about private property. They care about the cash and in-kind contributions of entertainment and media companies, and in return for those contributions they will eviscerate your First Amendment rights without a moment's hesitation.

Once enacted, SOPA/PIPA will never be undone; politicians will see the value that so many of their fascist predecessors have in restricting the freedom of speech. What will be lost here will never be recovered again by the citizens - soon to be subjects - of the United States of America.

SOPA/PIPA must die, so that this nation may continue to live. Go to the above Wikipedia link and read it all.

And for historical posterity, should the bill pass, I wish to post what I believe will be the biggest lie of this entire debate:

An aide to Rep. Lamar Smith (R) said, "This bill does not make it a felony for a person to post a video on YouTube of their children singing to a copyrighted song. The bill specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal or infringing activity. Sites that host user content—like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter—have nothing to be concerned about under this legislation.

Bullshit.  And can we get a primary challenger to this guy, please?

Where have We Seen That Newsweek Cover Before? Ahhh...

There was something naggingly familiar about this Newsweek cover:

And no, it's not the picture of Obama that we've seen so many times -  head tilted upward in sneering superiority, so he may better  look down upon us, his ungrateful subjects to whom he has given so much.  And it's not his surprising remarkableness to the recently departed Kim Jung Il, in his latter days.  It was the "dumb" comment.  When was the last time a major magazine insulted the intelligence of the majority of the American people like that?  I was sure I had seen its ilk before...

Thankfully, we have Tim Blair to remind us:

But did you know that the publisher of the Mirror was one Piers Morgan? Yeah, the very same. Although not at the time that the above piece was published; he had been sacked just months before for falling for a crude Photoshop hoax involving British soldiers, water torture, and a few other leftist hotspots..  But the tree still bears the same fruit:

The Mirror's front page on 4 November 2004, after the re-election of George W. Bush as U.S. President, read "How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?". It provided a list of states and their average IQ, showing the Bush states all below average intelligence (except for Virginia), and all Kerry states at or above average intelligence. The source for this table was The Economist, although it was a hoax.

And they call us stupid...

Captian Francesco Schettino: A Profile In Cowardice

One can argue whether the mad rush of  crewmen and other males on board to get on the lifeboats of the Costa Concordia  were acting simply with what some claim are classic Italian "manners", or the result of a lifetime of feminists telling us women and men were equals.  But there can be no excusing the behavior of the Concordia's Captain Francesco Schettino, who abandoned all semblance of courage, humanity, and responsibility - left to sink with his ship into the murky deep, along with what passengers those lost traits may take with them - so that he could save his pathetic, sorry ass.

The transcript would almost be funny, if people did not die due the incredible cowardice of one pathetic man:

Port authority: "You go on board. It is an order. You cannot make any other evaluations. You have declared abandoning ship. Now I’m in charge. You get on board. Is it clear?"

Schettino: "Commandant..."

Port authority over captain: "Are you not listening to me.."

Schettino speaks over Port authority: "I’m going..."

Schettino: "Call me immediately when you get on board. Our rescue officer is there."

Schettino: "Where is your rescue officer?"

Port authority: "My rescue officer is at the stem…Go …(can hear captain saying OK)…There are already bodies, Schettino."

Schettino: "How many dead bodies are there?"

Port authority: "I don’t know. I know of one. I’ve heard of one. You are the one to tell me how many there are. Christ!"

Schettino: "Are you aware that it is dark here and we cannot see anything?"

Port authority: "So? Do you want to go home Schettino? It is dark and you want to go home? Climb the ladder and get on the stem."

Port authority: "...and tell me what can be done, how many people are there, what do they need. Now."

Schettino: "Commandant, we are with the second in command…"

Port authority: "Then both of you climb up. What is his name?"

Schettino: "Dimitris Christidis."

Port authority: "You are your guard. Go on board, now!"

Schettino: "Commandant… I want to go on board, it is just that the other lifeboat here…there are other rescue operators... it has stopped and it is stuck there... now I’ve called other rescue operators..."

Port authority: "It is one hour that you are telling me this. You go on board. On b.o.a.r.d (says the word slowly almost spelling it out). And you immediately tell me how many people there are"

Schettino: "OK."


Compare and contrast to, say, the men who stormed into the World Trade Center on September 11th. And some say there is no such thing as American exceptionalism...

More:

Italian Coast Guard Capt. Gregorio De Falco: Where are you? On the lifeboats? All the officers?"

Schettino: "Yes, we are with the second commander…"

De Falco: "Forgive me, but before you were only with a sailor. If the officers managed to get down, it means that they could still move."

Schettino: "Yes...in fact...

De Falco: "Then why don’t they get back on board? To monitor the operation and then they can tell us. Thank you."

Schettino: "No it is not possible…"

Schettino: "We abandoned the ship…the ship turned ..."

De Falco: "...and with one hundred people on board you abandon the ship? (expletive)"

Bloomberg Closes Brooklyn Store For Selling A Toy "Sheriff's Set"

That's right, folks!  The same toys that you and your imagination lived on for about a half-century are now criminal to sell, and punishable by the loss of livelihood.

Welcome to Michael Bloomberg's New York:

The owner of a discount store in Brooklyn says the city is holding him up for $30,000 in fines he can’t afford — all because he stocked six toy sheriff sets that included plastic guns.

And now the .44-caliber fines for the orange-tipped, obvious fakes are forcing him to close for good.

“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Khaled Mohamed, 23, manager of 99¢ Target in Flatlands, which has been ordered to pay a staggering $5,000 fine for each gun offered for sale — the maximum under the law.

The store “cannot pay that fine at all,” said Mohamed, arguing that the punishment imposed on the Utica Avenue odds-and-ends shop is way out of proportion to the violation.

“They’re stopping us from doing any business,” he said


See that bright orange tip?  Notice the obviously plastic lamination?  Shoot (can I get arrested for saying that?), I'm  just wasting my breath here.  The endgame of the policy here is complete abolition of firearms, whether it is arresting tourists for not knowing the law, or shutting down (minority-owned!  ahem!) business for even selling toys that barely resemble a 21st century weapon.

Well, not complete abolition. There will still be guns in the hands of criminals, of course.  And  I'm sure the political elite will still be able to get permits.  And  law enforcement, of course, who answer to Bloomberg, and the folks on his Consumer Affairs Bureau.

But don't worry.  I am sure they all have your best interests in mind...

Life as a citizen(?) in Michael Bloomberg's New York...

Income Equality: What Is It Good For?

Only as a weapon for the Left to bludgeon the American people with, so that they will be guilted into giving up more of their hard-earned money to the government:

The hyperventilating on the left over income inequality is almost entirely self-interested: an excuse for transferring the new wealth from the people who created it (and made us all richer thereby) to politicians who will use it to buy votes...

Why is income inequality all the rage nowadays? Because the previous cudgel - racism - was swung so often that it became a soft, useless weapon, now openly mocked rather than feared. And it is hard to make a society feel guilty about "leaving the poor to starve" when the majority of  its middle-class citizens feels they are only minutes away from that fate themselves.

So now we have the liberals and the media pushing "income inequality" as our latest, greatest sin, only solvable by - you guessed it - government intervention. Looks like they are planning to put spikes on this mace and swing it wildly during the 2012 election season, counting on it both as an offensive weapon and as a defensive one ("who will call for the income less-abled, if not us?").

It's just another class-warfare offensive, waged asymmetrically by the Democratic party's irregulars in the mainstream media. Barack Obama and the Left are counting on the fact that people will look at their shrinking incomes, their rising costs, their lowering standards of living, and blame...someone who makes a few bucks more than them. And so empower the government to wrest it from their neighbors by force, and redistribute it back to them.

Orwell was right...and the pigs are upon us...

Fat chance. Of the government ever redistributing more than 1% of what they heist, I mean. And of the American people ever turning on themselves like that. Barack Obama is hoping for Keynesian results from Keynesian stimulus - fear, loathing, and rioting.

UK riots, summer 2011

 

He simply does not understand the people he pretends to lead. But Barack Hussein Obama never has, nor has he cared to try.  It's irrelevant, actually, to what he intends to accomplish...

Standards of Beauty: Women Fight Back Against The Hollywood / Media Hate Machine

A follow-up, of sorts, on a post I wrote some eighteen months ago, and sporadically gets a ton of hits, entitled The Media's Hate Crime Against Beautiful Women. I'll quote myself here:

...I am talking about the media's bastardization of the ideal of female beauty. In the days of the great masters of the Renaissance, women of beauty were depicted as full-figured, full-bosomed and wide-bottomed, with a glass of wine in one hand and a bunch of grapes in the other, in case you didn't get the point.

Now, the only women that can be considered "hot" are size zeros or less. No hips, no curves, no bountiful bosoms allowed. More girl-ish, than woman-ish (and you wonder why the entirety of the Hollywood/MSM remains in full-throated support of Roman Polanski?). Should some young late-teen/early 20's starlet put on ten pounds as they are filling out from an adolescent (girl's) figure to an adult (woman's) figure, they are pilloried by the media as becoming "fat", complete with unflattering photos taken while said starlet shleps in sweats to grab the morning paper.

And thus, we have a generation of women who are attuned to a body style that is both unnatural, and, to many men, unattractive...

 But perhaps something is beginning to slowly change here.  Recently, Christina Aguilera showed up at a Micheal Jackson tribute concert looking some 15-odd pounds heavier, and the knives, as usual, came out.  The ugly and miserable Kelly Osbourne, on E!'s 'Fashion Police' show, went for the Aguilera's throat:

"Maybe she is just becoming the fat b---- she was born to be. I don't know. She was a c--- to me. And she bought my house!" Osbourne ranted.

Jeez, Kelly, didn't you used to be quite rotund until about fifteen minutes ago?  Regardless, Christina responded with maturity and grace:

"I've been in this (business) for a long time. I came out on the scene when I was 17 years old. You can never be too much of anything. You can never be too perfect, too thin, too curvy, voluptuous, this, that. I've been on all sides of the spectrum as far as any female in this business...
"As long as I'm happy in my own skin, that's all I need. I'm happy with where I'm at. I have a boyfriend that loves my body. I love my body.

Which promptly shut up the nay-sayers, and left the few remaining haters looking and sounding meaner and bitchier than usual.   Look at Christina then, and now.  Which body does a mature male enjoy better?  And is it surprising which figure a depraved, pedophile-choked Hollywood prefers?

PLUS Magazine is fighting the media's skinnier-is-better meme as well, by graphically illustrating what a runway model looks like next to a more nornally sized/shaped women:

Most runway models meet the body mass index criteria for anorexia, according to an editorial pictorial in the January issue of PLUS Model magazine.

Twenty years ago, the average fashion model weighed 8 percent less than the average woman. Today, she weighs 23 percent less, it said...

These statistics accompany nude photos of a plus-size model, who in some images is entwined with a nude runway model.

The editorial — intended to be revealing in both senses — is aimed at the fashion industry, but its immediate audience is ordinary women who are increasingly dissatisfied by fashion’s unwillingness to market to them, the magazine said.

Half of women wear a size 14 or larger, but most standard clothing outlets cater to sizes 14 or smaller, it said.



And I am sure that Barack and Michelle's jihad against "obesity" isn't helping, as the government's standards for "overweight" are akin to a size/shape that most of us would be more than thrilled to possess...

It seems as if the fight against Hollywood's, and the media's, warped and perverted standard of beauty has begun.  Not to mention the push-back against the Obamas' obsessive desire to force every American down to what they feel is their ideal body mass.  "Normal" girls are taking to the cameras, and showing us what real beauty is all about:  Full figures, curves, and wide faces with ear-to-ear smiles.  And your average guys - who are actually less worried about who they'll be photographed with and more concerned about getting their both hands on some serious "T", and "A" - are going to start clamoring for more.

What will the media/Hollywood complex do?  Can they bear to admit that the waif-like, child-like, skeletal figures they find so alluring are not in line with what the average American sees as beautiful? Or will they just turn the hate up to 11?  After all, they have their pedophilia to deal with...

I know what I am going to do: Compare and contrast.

Would you rather have this:

 Or this?

Better?

Or worse?

 How about...no contest?

Taliban Fighters: Piss On Them!

These are the people the Obama Administration are so afraid of offending:

Meet the Taliban’s Child Suicide Bombers

The mission was as simple as touching two wires together, the little boy was promised. The resulting blast would obliterate the American infidels – but God would spare him from the flame and shrapnel. Abdul Samat would be unharmed and free to run back to the men who had fitted his bomb vest.

Blindfolded and rigged with his explosive payload, the boy, who was about 13, was driven to his target in the Afghan city of Kandahar, after being plucked from the streets of Quetta in neighbouring Pakistan. Minutes before he was due to execute the attack, however, Abdul realised the lies of his recruiters seeking to turn him into a human bomb.

“When I opened my eyes, I saw it was a very black thing they wanted me to do,” he later recalled. “I began to cry and shout. People came out of their houses and asked what was wrong. I showed them I had something in my vest. Then they were scared too and called the police who took the bombs off me.”. . .


 Greg Pollowitz comments:

But did the Taliban handlers urinate on the boys first? Because if they did, then we have a story...


United States military and diplomatic personnel were quick to condemn such cavalier use of civilians in combat:

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called it "deplorable" and warned, “Those found to have engaged in such conduct will be held accountable to the fullest extent."  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she felt "total dismay" after hearing the story.

"It is absolutely inconsistent with American values..."

OH! Wait, my mistake....that wasn't Panetta's and Clinton's response to the Taliban's use of innocent children to slaughter innocent adults.  Sorry - it was their response to a video of U.S. Marines urinating on dead Taliban fighters! Clinton and Panetta had no comment on the story above, because when you are negotiating a surrender to your enemies, you cannot risk pointing out what hateful, cruel, sick, soulless people they really are.

"Surrender to my d**k, terrorist dog!"

For perspective, you have to go to Rick Perry:

GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry is accusing the Obama administration of "over-the-top rhetoric" and "disdain for the military" in its condemnation of a video that purportedly shows Marines urinating on dead bodies in Afghanistan.
No one has been charged in the case, but officials in the U.S. and abroad have called for swift punishment of the four Marines.

Perry tells CNN's "State of the Union" that he thinks the Marines involved should be reprimanded, but not pursued with criminal charges.

Perry said "18, 19-year-old kids make stupid mistakes all too often and that's what's occurred here."


 I believe that is called "perspective". But don't look for it when dealing with an issue that involves liberals and the United States military...

Oh, Rick. What might have been, if only you were able to string together a few coherent sentences...

Michelle Obama Gets Booed By Pre-Teens

Yeah, well, everyone hates a buttinsky, and kids have a much more accurate and sensitive bullshit meter than the 21+ crowd. 

A disclaimer of sorts, first:

A screaming, raucous auditorium filled with elementary and middle school students greeted Obama and the cast of the Nickelodeon TV show “iCarly” at Hayfield Secondary School in Fairfax County.

 Were these kids in fact screaming for Michelle Obama? Well, Fairfax is a suburb of DC, one of the richest suburbs in the nation, and houses primarily government employees, albeit of the six-figure variety (which is no longer a subgroup, and more likely the predominant one). So perhaps they should be big supporters of the Obamas, being that Barack and Michelle are looting the rest of the nation to make their parents rich.

Then again, it helps to appear in the company of the stars of the hottest teen show on TV. Were the kids cheering wildly for Moochelle, or for "iCarly" stars Miranda Cosgrove and Jennette McCurdy?

No way to know. But this is revealing:

During a question-and-answer session with students, Obama drew a handful of playful boos when she was asked about school lunches and talked about legislation she and her husband supported to add more vegetables to the school lunch program.

Taking note of the reaction, she said, “But this is for you all. … It’s hard to do what you do if you’re not healthy.”

She concluded with a simple admonition: “Eat your vegetables.”

 

"Playful"? I suppose we'll have to rely on our unbiased media for that unwarranted description. But no surprise that the kids are revolted by the new "healthy" meals being forced down their throats, and even less surprising that they booed the woman who stood in front of them bragging about coming up with the idea, and scolding them for objecting to her role as an unasked-for surrogate mother.

(Kids, by the way, will go hungry rather than eat food they don't like. So starving them is one way for the Obamas to claim they are winning the "obesity battle", I suppose...)

But I like the kids gut reaction to a government official telling them what is in their best interest. If our future Tea Partiers are being groomed now - albeit unwittingly - in the school districts of the most pro-government suburb in the nation, then our future as a nation might be brighter than we suppose...

Michelle Marie Antoinette Obama Insults Us Again....

If you don't like Barack Obama's presidency, that you're not entitled to have an opinion on it.  So sayeth the Queen, when she graced us with her presence on CBS This Morning, as she spoke to suckup Gayle King:

King: Will it be harder for you this time, because there have been talk -- there are some people who say they're disappointed in Barack Obama's presidency, that it hasn't accomplished all that they thought that it would or all that he said it would?

Obama: Yeah, but they just don't know.

King: Would you--

Obama: They don't know. They don't know all that. So we're going -- this campaign is going to be about making sure that people understand all that's been accomplished. I think people are confused about -- some may be confused about how much has been accomplished. But that's what you do in a campaign.


Pssst.....someone tell Michelle that if you eliminated the people that "don't understand" from the electorate, the Democratic base would likely be cut in half...

Sarah Palin responds here...

And if you can't stand looking at Michelle's smug, condescending mug anymore, well....consider the alternative views:

Queen Booty Shaker, indeed....

The Iranian Assassinations: Is The US A Cringing Chicken?

So another Iranian nuclear scientist bites the dust, and Iran's dream of dominating the Middle East under the threat of a mushroom cloud recedes, even if only for a moment.  And while one would expect the United States, whether involved or not, to keep a cool distance from the fray, our response has been one of more vitriolic opposition, to say the least.

Let's look at these statements:

The assassination drew an unusually strong condemnation from the White House and the State Department, which disavowed any American complicity.


“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to expand the denial beyond Wednesday’s killing, “categorically” denying “any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”


“We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Based on Hillary's remark above - almost a plea for forgiveness - the New York Times gives an analysis that is likely spot-on:

The statements by the United States appeared to reflect serious concern about the growing number of lethal attacks, which some experts believe could backfire by undercutting future negotiations and prompting Iran to redouble what the West suspects is a quest for a nuclear capacity.

Looks like the Obama Administration is going the old appeasement route - let Iran continue with their bad behavior, and don't get them angry, or else they may use it as an excuse not to sit down with us in the future and talk about....where to sit at the next meeting.

Don't rule out the president's narcissism, either. He based his entire campaign on being the guy who could get quarreling groups together by the majesty of his words and the force of his will; to use force of another kind is to admit personal failings and defeat. And if Barack Obama is one thing, it is extremely, almost pathologically, non-self-reflecting...

But is it just all a feint; is the US actually complicit here? The harsh denials could be a cover, and a good excuse for the administration's myriad of anti-semites to embarrass and bash Israel (the only other suspect) under the guise of protecting it.

I doubt it. If that were there case, the Israeli denial-style would have been the way to go:

The Israeli military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, writing on Facebook about the attack, said, “I don’t know who took revenge on the Iranian scientist, but I am definitely not shedding a tear,” Israeli news media reported.

Hey Barack - meet a real man...

Too gutsy for our American president, apparently, whether we are involved or not. Sure, the Iranian president is laughing up a storm, denying the Holocaust while building a nuke while making clear that  boy-oh-boy, if you want to see a real holocaust, just give me another eighteen months! But that doesn't matter. Barack Hussein Obama has his feelings to worry about....and Hillary Clinton has a process she's ideologically compelled to follow.

And if another six million Jews should die? Well, as long as it happens after the 2012 elections...

ACLU Goes Hunting - For Conservative Heads...

Fascinating anecdote at Contentions on Obama's Guantanamo bay policy.  Faced with reality - that closing the prison site was an impossibility - he called in a bunch of law professors and "civil liberties activists" to break the bad news: That Gitmo wasn't going away anytime soon.

Gasps were uttered, clothing was rent, teeth were gnashed, and a wail went up unto the heavens. But one bit of commentary from the assembled liberal rout stands out in shocking clarity:

But the worst moment of the meeting took place at its conclusion, when ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero repeated his plea for Obama to prosecute Bush officials. Romero said: “Hunt one head and hunt it famously and bring it down to ensure we don’t make the same mistakes again.”

Obama, to his great credit, told Romero he was alone on that ledge and dismissed the meeting.

Good for Obama. But the hatred and zeal of Romero - his virtual lust for blood - paints a clear portrait of who and what the American Civil Liberties Union really is.

One wonders if Romero will be demanding the head of an Obama administration official for the crimes committed by Eric Holder, or the Solyndra financing fiasco, or the sick crony capitalism of Lightsquared, in which a U.S. general was pressured to lie to Congress - and risk national security - in order to help a Dem-donor company.  After all, it might insure we don't make the same mistakes again...

Can you say...unlikely?  After all, it's always hunting season on Republicans, while Democrats, despite their high crimes and misdemeanors, always seem to be a protected species...


It's a team effort.  See here for how the police and the media covered up for Romano when he was recently arrested for drunk driving in East Hampton, after an all-night bender celebrating the passage of New York's gay marriage law...

Ricky Gervais Rips Hollywood Elites

Oh, it's gonna be a heckuva Golden Globes show, with Ricky handling the hosting duties once again. One of maybe three people in Hollywood that aren't filled with notions of narcissistic glory (the other two being Trey Parker and Matt Stone), Ricky lets loose on the in-crowd:

“They’re the wealthiest, most privileged people in the world,” the comic says of Hollywood’s A-list in an upcoming Esquire interview. “Offense is taken, not given.”

Gearing up for his third time as host, Gervais adds, “Imagine if I had gone out there and said, ‘We’re all in the same gang. Aren’t we brilliant? Us millionaires together’ . . . I’m not a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I’m a wolf in wolf’s clothing.”

“There was a Roman emperor who hired someone to whisper, ‘You’re just a man,’ in his ear as he walked around the crowds,” Gervais says of Hollywood hubris. “Just to remind him, because he knew if everyone tells you, you’re a god, then you are. And so he hired someone to say, ‘You’re just a man.’ ”

I guess that's Rickey's role now. Kudos for him for willing to shoulder the burden. And in return, I'll...DVR the Golden Globes this Sunday. Still can't bear to watch it. But I will fast-forward around and stop when he's doing his hosting duties. Will be the only thing worth watching, and the only thing that won't make the bile rise in the back of my throat...

Chris Christie: What Might Have Been...

Jon Huntsman thought he could build a moderate-conservative coalition by...bashing conservaties.  Big fail there, Jon-boy. Wanna see how it is done?  Look East, at the Big Man of New Jersey:

...when New Jersey residents list their favorite things, it seems the governor belongs in the conversation.

According to a statewide poll released Monday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind, 53 percent of Garden State voters approve of the job Christie is doing, while 37 percent disapprove, a 16 percentage point spread. The poll was released on the eve of Christie’s annual State of the State address.

“That’s the way any office-holder wants to begin the new year,” said Peter Woolley, director of the poll. “But in this economic climate, many aren’t.”
The governor’s approval rating is virtually identical to where it was a year ago...

 How does Chris Christie get such positive numbers in a blue state?  By being as conservative as he can be, given the circumstances.  He cannot go hard-right, but he can go right-center, and slowly turn the good ship New Jersey away from the shoals.

He could have been more than a contender.  He would have been The Champ.  Whereas Huntsman is no more than pretender, a chump.  He should think about what Chris Christie has done, and how he has done it, and give himself 20 lashes for wasting such an opportunity, by taking the advice of the mainstream media instead of following what political instincts he may or may not have had in the first place...

But can you imagine Christie on the trail right now?  The soaring excitement, the rhetorical disdain leveled not his fellow Republicans, but at the Naked Emperor occupying the White House?  The turnout in the primaries, with voting halls filled with citizens anxious to put their support on record? A movement led by a happy warrior, one who relishes the fight as much as the beer afterward, who can win it all cleanly, based on the merits and not the mud thrown?

We'll get none of that.  We'll probabaly get Mitt Romney.  But we can look off wistfully in the distance, and wonder at what might have been...

Unicorns Fail To Fly. The Government, In Response, Fines The Oil Companies...

The inevitable result of the immaturity of the progressive movement, I suppose.  Or maybe it's their insanity.  Either way, it's a dangerous group of people to give power to.  Because when they don't get what they want - even if it only exists in their fevered imagination - they lash out.  Usually at convenient cartoon criminals or the enemy du jour, although, in a pinch, Jews will do just fine.

Case in point:  Fining oil companies millions of dollars for the failure to use an "environment-friendly" biofuel that doesn't even exist:

When the companies that supply motor fuel close the books on 2011, they will pay about $6.8 million in penalties to the Treasury because they failed to mix a special type of biofuel into their gasoline and diesel as required by law.

But there was none to be had. Outside a handful of laboratories and workshops, the ingredient, cellulosic biofuel, does not exist.

In 2012, the oil companies expect to pay even higher penalties for failing to blend in the fuel, which is made from wood chips or the inedible parts of plants like corncobs. Refiners were required to blend 6.6 million gallons into gasoline and diesel in 2011 and face a quota of 8.65 million gallons this year.

 “It belies logic,” Charles T. Drevna, the president of the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, said of the 2011 quota. And raising the quota for 2012 when there is no production makes even less sense, he said.

Penalizing the fuel suppliers demonstrates what happens when the federal government really, really wants something that technology is not ready to provide....

Soon, we'll all be riding him to work!  And he'll like it...

Wait until 2013, when the government gets to apply the same rational thinking to your health care.  You know, the same health care that will become more efficient and less expensive because progressives say it will?

Typical celebrity privilege, getting all the best forms of motive power...no wonder Sarah Silverman can't get her tongue out of her unicorn's mouth...

The Simpsons Goes After The "Tea Party"....

Used be a time - oh, for maybe its first ten years - that the Simpsons was the most cutting-edge counter-cultural show on television - an animated version of the Saturday Night Live of the late 70's. Over the past decade, it has de-evolved into a subpar poorly written and executed sitcom, whose writers throw in as many liberal tropes as possible, while taking clumsy shots at conservatives, which may earn them kudos at the water cooler but get them brickbats from open-minded viewers of any political stripe.

Possibly the worst offender was this episode....but coming close was Sunday's entry, where a dim witted Homer takes on the role of a FOX news host, and convinces his dim-witted countrymen to join him on a pointless crusade, in which they all wear gravy boats on their heads. The HuffPo gets the joke:

(they wear them like colonial hats -- *wink wink*)

Yeah, it's mostly the stuff liberals find funny, but there were two things that irked me. One was having the fictional FOX producers essentially call their audience idiots, to which Lisa responds with outrage. Maybe just a case of the writers protecting themselves, as they were depicting the FOX audience as idiots? The second was showing Chris Christie as a gluttonous buffoon, too busy eating chicken to run for president. Consider your lucky that he's biding his time, ladies...

Putting the hate of the Left into the mouths of FOX...

Best takedown is from the owner of the Dead Homer Society blog, who labels all Simpsons episodes past season 10 as "Zombie". He's got a point, they've been stumbling around aimlessly and brainlessly for quite some time now:

The subject matter was stale and the satire was stuff that has been done better elsewhere, but the place you can see it most is in the little tricks they use to make this expired milk seem fresh. They ran current jokes in a news ticker, they had static images of the Republican presidential field on a table, with Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain’s photos crossed out with easy-to-add-late graphics. They know that these episodes don’t work well, but they went ahead and did it anyway because if you can take some potshots at Glenn Beck a year after he was dumped off television and add in some political jokes no one will care about two months from now, then you have to do it.

Watching this, I really can’t help but think the staff would rather be writing for Saturday Night Live or The Daily Show.

Exactly. Is the Simpsons now considered a "minor league affiliate" of Comedy Central, or is it just a home for their rejected writers?

Either way, some good news comes out of it:

Anyway, the numbers are in and they are really, truly awful... a mere 5.11 million people remembered Ted Nugent after the Steelers came back to tie it late. That’s easily the lowest so far this season and is tied with Season 21’s “Million Dollar Maybe” for the second lowest number of all time.... Season 23 is now all but assured of being the least watched season ever. The only question now is how far it sinks.

Oh, with an election coming up in 2012, I'm sure the real digging hasn't even begun...

Tim Tebow: God's Messenger? Hmmm....

Regular readers of this blog know I like to trot out the occasional conspiracy theory.  While Occam's Razor is probably the best starting point for interpreting the universe, truth is often much, much stranger than fiction.

And what else is a conspiracy but a series of related coincidences, tied together to form an unlikely pattern, in order to support an unsteady theory?  And yet....

It seems to me that every now and again - and more often lately -  The Big Guy is trying to send us a message.  Personally, when I read about the limited but very specific damage caused by that very unusual late-summer Virginia earthquake, I felt a chill go down my spine.   I just felt it again, in reading some of the Tim Tebow post-heroic wrap-ups:

The fact that Tebow had 316 yards passing and averaged 31.6 yards per pass in the game didn't escape notice on Sunday night. Tebow wore "John 3:16" on his eye black in the 2009 BCS Championship game and has since become identified with the famous Bible message. The coincidental stats caused millions of fans to perform Google searches on the Bible passage in the past 24 hours. Here's one more unbelievable stat: John Ourand of Sports Business Journal reports that the final quarter-hour television rating for the Broncos-Steelers game was, you guessed it, 31.6.

 More:

As it turns out, the lone interception thrown in the game on Sunday night came from Ben Roethlisberger. What down and distance were involved when he threw it? Third and 16. Of course.

 I don't know what it all means.  But just to be on the safe side...

John 3:16 -  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

And then, of course, there's always this:

"They say when you talk to God it's prayer. But when God talks to you, it's schizophrenia."
~Agent Fox Mulder (The X-Files: All Souls)

Why So Many "Gay" Questions In The Republican Debate?

Plenty of well-deserved outrage over the past few days over the debate performances of George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer.  Gay rights, abortion, contraception - why in the world would two alleged "reporters" waste the nation's time with such crap?

Yeah, I suppose the easy answer is that because these two asshats are liberals, these issues matter more to them than national defense, trillion dollar deficits, and chronic unemployment.  But there is more to it than that.  As media liberals, Stephanopoulos and Sawyer see themselves as the vanguard of the elite themselves - they believe they can control the national conversation, and steer it in such ways that it will prevent the barbarians (the Republicans) from storming the gate.

So all the social issue questions that the two "moderators" brought up are really less reflective of America's concerns - or even George's and Diane's - and more of an attempt to use these issue as a cudgel against conservatives, and as a way to create a divide between the American people and the Republican party.

The Left continues its battle for the soul of the nation, if for no other reason than to stamp it out.  Via Contentions:

Liberal secularism is a project in its own right that is bent on eliminating any recognized place for biblical faith as the guiding light of the culture. It will not rest content until faith withdraws from playing any public role, direct or indirect. The conflict of secularism and faith is at the heart of the so-called “culture war.”

Mathew Staver, founder of the conservative law group, Liberty Counsel, talks about how the Left is suing "gay rights" as a tool to eliminate the role of a man's conscious in his everyday transactions:

"I believe the greatest threat to religious liberty is the clash between religious liberty and LGBT rights," he says.

Staver says as rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people make gains, religious conservatives are having to set aside their convictions. A Christian counselor was penalized for refusing to advise gay couples. A court clerk in New York was told to issue same-sex marriage licenses, despite religious reservations. A wedding photographer was sued for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding. Staver says these people aren't trying to impose their religious views on others.

"What people of faith don't want to do, however, is be forced to participate in something that literally cuts to the very core of their belief."

But that's exactly what Barack Obama and the Democrats want. A nation where the government can force any person to do what they demand that they to do - regardless of their religious beliefs - under the guise of "the betterment of society as a whole". ObamaCare is an example on a grand scale, but the list grows longer by the day, designed to trip us all up if we don't follow the liberal line, as Staver's examples bear out.

And thus the need for George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer to try to fortify the gates with the LGBT buttress. Either force the Republicans to acknowledge the overwhelming power of government, or try to discredit them by painting their opposition to gay rights as some sort of moral failing itself (the rights of the aforementioned victims of the LGBT crusade do not exist, of course).

Based on the post-debate furor, it seems as if the liberal vanguard was a little less subtle than they might have been with their frontal attack on American religion, and are getting some blowback. Seems like George & Diane forgot that the erosion of America's tradition of religious freedoms was supposed to be a gradual one, conducted on the down-low, not to be noticed or mentioned until they were already gone...