<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d7626745258811529122\x26blogName\x3dOpineTree\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://opinetree.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://opinetree.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6547004278245586123', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Obama Kids Sing For Their Dear Leader

September 30, 2008 |

There are no words for this:

Labels: , ,

And Now, Some Words From Barack Obama's Teleprompter


God forbid Barack's prompter goes Ron Burgundy on him:

Labels: , ,

Obama Solicits Law Enforcement to "Remind" Voters He's a Christian


Sit down for this one. The Obama campaign is asking for the involvement of prosecutors and sheriffs who will be "reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes." Apparently the politics of change includes dispatching government officials to stifle criticism. Are you joking?

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce is maintaining that the tactics will not be used for "prosecuting people," not through any decisions made by Obama's Brownshirts, but through a little something called the First Amendment.
As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.
Then why is it, Jennifer, that Obama's campaign is "asking Missouri law enforcement to target" people? No one has to be prosecuted for this to work. The goal isn't to jail anyone (because again, thanks to the First Amendment they can't); the goal is to have the fear of potential litigation factor into anyone's decision to criticize the Messiah.

The Governor of Missouri lays it out pretty clearly in his statement:
"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose...is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society."
He promised you a new type of politics, didn't he?

Labels: ,

228 Nay, 205 Yea: Congress Defeats Bailout!

September 29, 2008 |

In financial terms, Bush and the Fed are attempting pull off what Osama couldn't on 9/11. Americans scored at least a temporary victory today as congress dissolved Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke's pipe-dream of a check for $700+ billion of taxpayer money:
In a vote that shook the government, Wall Street and markets around the world, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, leaving both parties and the Bush administration struggling to pick up the pieces.
Democrats voted 140 - 95 in favor of the bailout, while only 65 Republicans were in favor of the bill. We'll discuss later how both parties are wrong on this issue and are acting as meandering and robotic apparatchiks, exploiting it to score points against their opposing faction. But first, how is the head of the snake taking the news? Breitbart is reporting that Bush is "very disappointed" by the vote. What a shame! I'm sure this isn't what he had in mind when his administration pieced the legislation together months (yes, months) ago:
[White House Deputy Press Secretary] Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials.

He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
Unbelievable. If by "enough" you mean "enough time to pass this stinking pile of socialist legislation before the American people wake up to the fact that they're being blackmailed by their own government via one of the worst examples of financial terrorism ever to take place within their own borders," then yes, George.

Republicans are wrong for going along with this plan, albeit reluctantly, instead of calling out their president and the pirates of wall street on this un-American proposal. Democrats are wrong for blaming the "free market gone wild," completely neglecting to mention the Community Reinvestment Act.

I'll keep updating with news and thoughts as the day goes on; there's too much going on now.

Update: Don't assume this was a partisan defeat, and don't assume this is over. It's not over by any stretch. Here are some details from the bill itself:

If the Treasury purchases at least $300 million in mortgage-based assets from a financial institution, that company would lose the ability to take a tax deduction on the amount of salaries that exceed $500,000 for its top five individuals. It also includes a 20% excise tax on golden parachutes payments triggered by events other than retirement.
There was no executive compensation limit of any significance. Nothing. Just tax the "golden parachutes!" Was there any real tangible oversight for these crooks? Of course!

[The legislation] creates a "Financial Stability Oversight Board" to oversee the program, which includes the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary.

Wow. The Fed and the SEC?
Bernanke and Chris Cox were the crooks set to be on the Financial Stability Oversight Board? We don't need a casino, we need a market.

Keep in mind this is the lowest rated Congress in history, with an abysmal approval rating lower than that of George Bush. Mama Nancy has allowed congress and American resolve itself to wither and subsequently grind to a halt, and after today's defeat, there isn't enough botox in the universe to bring back that token Pelosi smile.

Update: Here are congressman Michael Burgess' remarks about the Democrats' chastising of Republican legislators, and making the case for informing the public of the contents of the bill.

Stay tuned for the arm-twisting.

Nancy Pelosi has assured party leaders that there will be no "witch hunt" into who caused the Fannie/Freddie crisis:
Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, [former board member for Freddie Mac] Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a "witch hunt" to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.

Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically -- or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally -- treacherous for many.
Of course - why would the witch be in favor of a witch hunt? So Nancy Pelosi plays political games while trying to place blame completely on Republicans and their "free market," and then tries to protects her own underlings from legal scrutiny during the worst financial crisis in a century?

And she wondered why we laughed in 2006 when she pledged to run the "most ethical congress ever

Labels: ,

New Iranian Best-Seller: "Those Jews and Their Wacky Holocaust!"

September 26, 2008 |

As if weekly "Death to Israel" rallies and Holocaust Deniers conferences weren't enough, a "group of Islamist students" have released a book mocking the Holocaust to "show solidarity with the Palestinians."

I know people love to claim that the knee-jerk reaction of calling someone an "anti-semite" for siding with the Palestinians is a popular one, but if you think "the Jews" were responsible for their own slaughter in order to politically exploit it - guess what? You're an anti-semite. From Breitbart:
The cover shows a Jew with a crooked nose and dressed in traditional garb drawing outlines of dead bodies on the ground. Inside, bearded Jews are shown leaving and re-entering a gas chamber with a counter that reads the number 5,999,999.

Another depicts Jewish prisoners entering a furnace in a Nazi extermination camp and leaving as gun-wielding terrorists from the other side.

Yet another shows a patient covered in an Israeli flag and on life support breathing Zyklon-B, the poisonous gas used in the extermination chambers.

The commentary inside the book includes anti-Semitic stereotypes and revisionist arguments, casting doubt on the massacre of Jews and mocking Holocaust survivors who claimed reparations after World War II.

One comment in a question-and-answer format reads: "How did the Germans emit gas into chambers while there were no holes on the ceiling?" Answer: "Shut up, you criminal anti-Semite. How dare you ask this question?"
I'm sure you remember the Danish cartoon controversy? How many death threats do you think will be made to the publishers of this book? How many bombings do you think will occur as a result of this mockery? I'm going to put my money on "zero."

I love how the Germans have admitted to and apologized for the murder of millions of Jews, and yet a culture and a race of people that had absolutely no involvement in the atrocity continues to deny it ever took place. Maybe they just want all the credit for their own soon-to-be-manifested genocide:
On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.

Demonstrators carried placards which read, "Israel will be destroyed, Palestine is Victorious" and "Holy war until victory," and they torched American and Israeli flags.

The demonstration was held under an official slogan: "The Islamic world will not recognize the fake Zionist regime under any circumstances and believes that this cancerous tumor will one day be wiped off the face of the earth."
I don't even know if I'm in favor of bombing their nuclear sites anymore. Maybe it would be feasible if we hadn't invaded Iraq (or were out by now) and if we had actually done something to stop them over the last 30 years, which is as long as they've wanted nuclear weapons.

Sure, keep up the economic sanctions. If they do anything, they enrage Ahmadinejad, allowing more of his evil nature and hostile vitriol to be seen and heard by the international community. But in the end, it's probably too late to stop them. They'll get the bomb if they don't have it already, and they'll use it.

I think I'm in favor of the YAD strategy. That is to say, "Your Assured Destruction." With our most sophisticated anti-missile systems, we let the Iranians know that any adorable little nuke they fire will be immediately shot down, and followed by ten of our own being detonated over Iranian soil. Too harsh?

It's the EMP threat that scares me, anyway.

Update: It should be noted that these "Islamists" are not random students but actually a tentacle of the Iranian government - a paramilitary force founded by the original Ayatollah in 1979. Also, here's how Pakistanis (you know, our "allies?") are celebrating their Al-Quds day:

Labels: ,

New Yorkers to Ahmadinejad: Go Home


Some of the best photos from the anti-Ahmadinejad rally in Manhattan yesterday. Enjoy:


The Government Bailout is a Taxpayer Bailout

September 25, 2008 |

I've been weighing how I want to approach writing about the current financial meltdown, the words of our treasury secretary (you know, the former Goldman Sachs CEO), the failed policies of both parties, the unchecked greed of Wall Street, and the $700 billion the American citizens are being asked to cough up to bail out these pirates.

I don't have to anymore, as none other than Ron Paul has written one of the most sober and concise articles detailing the origins of the crisis and making the case against the bailout. I'm going to post it in its entirety here, because it needs to be read:
Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage home building and home ownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.
Once again, John McCain is doing everything in his power to convince conservatives to stay at home in November by parroting the message that the sky is falling, and asking Americans to add to our national debt the equivalent of what we've spent on 6 years in Iraq.

Let 'em go under. We'll be better off for it.


Biden: We Don't Support Clean Coal; Obama: Yeah, Actually We Do

September 24, 2008 |

While reading Sarah Palin's interview with Fox News' favorite college dropout, I came across something of interest regarding drilling in Alaska:
Palin: I support drilling in Alaska because it’s going to be good for our nation and our nation’s--

Hannity: Including ANWR?

Palin: Absolutely. ANWR is a 2,000 acre plot of land and it’s a 20 million acre plot of land...But, no secret, John McCain and I agree to disagree on that one. And I’m going to keep working on him with ANWR...we must start taking the steps to get [energy independent]. That’s why he has embraced offshore drilling. That’s why he has embraced the ideal of the alternative fuels also. And I’ll keep working on him with ANWR.
Let me start by saying this. There are rational positions about which people with different values and political perspectives can differ. Then, there are irrational positions, which are driven either by the interests of powerful lobbies (read: environmentalists) or perhaps simply unchecked emotion. Opposition to drilling in ANWR can be classified as the latter.

The area in question is about the size of Los Angeles International Airport, and LAX isn't even one of the nation's largest; you could practically fit it inside Dallas-Fort Worth.

And don't get me started on the myth of threatened caribou populations. Since construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the amount of caribou increased more than ten times over, a jump largely attributed to the warmth of the pipeline. If you were a caribou, where would you rather get it on with your old lady - under a nice hot pipe, or in the freezing cold snow?

After reading her statement, I thought to myself, "Gee, imagine that...Palin openly says that John McCain has something completely wrong, and is going to "work on him" to change his mind. Is there anything Joe Biden thinks Barack Obama has completely wrong? Any particular issue over which Joe wants to "keep working on him?"

I couldn't think of a single issue on which the 1st and 3rd most liberal senators would disagree. But then, as if Delaware's own gaffe-master was reading my thoughts, Biden dropped this bomb:

It would be one thing if he said, "While my running mate supports clean coal, I personally am not in favor of it, and will work to have the voices of people like you and me heard in an Obama administration." But notice the statement, "we're not supporting clean coal," which is in direct contradiction to Obama's stated energy plan. From Messiah's website:
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.
Either Joe has been too busy reviewing his IQ tests to remember which ticket he's on (which doesn't seem likely given that McCain also supports clean coal), or this is all part of some grand scheme to have the wicked witch of the East River jump aboard the ship Biden is hopelessly trying to sink with comments like these.

Come to think of it, this is probably in the same category as Biden's admission that the Obama ad lambasting McCain for his inability to magically make his bones work was "terrible." He even added some of that trademark Barack "nuance" when he implied that Barack Obama didn't approve a message that ended with the words "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

Suddenly, Caribou Barbie no longer looks like the most detrimental VP pick of this election.

Update: The McCain campaign has already pounced:
As part of John McCain’s “all of the above” energy plan, the Lexington Project, clean coal will be a strong component of the drive to energy independence. In addition to providing domestic energy, the coal industry is a key part of the economy in several states.

John McCain’s support for clean coal technology is in sharp contrast to that of his opponents. Joe Biden visited Virginia on Saturday, saying that he was a “hard-coal miner” and that it was “nice to be back in coal country” while Obama supporter, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) said “Senator Obama’s a friend of coal.” But just two days later in Ohio, Senator Biden said he wants “no coal plants here in America” and that he and Senator Obama are “not supporting clean coal.”
Update: Check out this adorable little bit of spin from the Obama campaign on the issue of Biden's comments. Again, remember what Biden said: "we're not supporting clean coal."
“Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology,” says Biden spokesman David Wade. “Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."
So the Obama campaign has now said that despite Biden's own words to the contrary, he really does support clean coal. Can you imagine if McCain had made the same statement, and his McCain tried to play it off as if he just "misspoke?" He'd be accused of being a senile old man unfit for the presidency. And what if Sarahcuda misstated one of John McCain's positions? It would be another reason to paint her as an "irresponsible" pick.

So while we don't know whether Biden supports clean coal, what if the coal is both clean and articulate?

Labels: ,

Shocker: Eco-Fanatics Most Likely to Contribute to Global Warming


In a day-making story from the Guardian, you can read about a study which showed that people who claim to have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as "some of the main culprits behind global warming."
According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.
I think one of the requirements for being a global-warming eco-warrior is a certain amount of hypocrisy. I'm not damning these people for taking long plane trips - if they can afford it, by all means, have a blast. But what do expect when Mother Earth's very own savior (ahem, Mr. Gore), owns a house that consumes more electricity than 20 times the national average, and who continues to dart about the globe in a private jet?


Iranian Finds Christ, Death Row

September 23, 2008 |

Just like there are "no homosexuals" in Iran, there apparently will soon be no non-Muslims. Iranian Ramtin Soudmand has decided that Islam just isn't for him, opting to convert to Christianity. However, despite the Iranian government's failure to charge him with a crime, Ramtin was arrested and detained by Iranian authorities and will face the death penalty if an anti-apostasy bill is passed by parliament.

From Adnkronos International:
Tehran, 23 Sept. (AKI) - Iranian Christian convert Ramtin Soudmand faces the death penalty after being jailed for the crime of 'ertedad' or abandoning the Muslim faith.

Ramtin's father Hossein Soudmand, a Protestant pastor, was executed almost 20 years ago for converting to Christianity and refusing to deny his new faith.

Married with two children, Soudmand was detained by security officials in Mashad about a month ago.

"The authorities have not yet charged my brother with any crime, but we fear that his charges will be formalised after the execution of the sentence, like what happened with my father," said Ramtin's sister, Rashin in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI).
There is very little to stop the Iranian government from ratifying the law, which will make apostasy a capital offense. The bill in question was approved by a vote of 196-7, and would institute a mandatory death sentence for any Iranian who leaves Islam for a different faith.

If "international pressure" can't stop the messianic mullahs from getting the bomb, how can it stop the Islamic republic from executing their own homegrown infidels?


Heartbreak: Mexicans Pinching Pesos as Income From America Slows


I hope I have room on my desk for all the tears I'm going to cry after wading through this story. The first few paragraphs of the article in question discuss Luis Martínez, who was deported after unlawfully leaving the country to attend a funeral while attempting to gain U.S. citizenship.

That's a bummer - but not the focus of the article. The real tragedy is that the flood of illegal immigrants can't afford to send quite so large a piece of our ever-feeble economy back to their familia across the border.

From the piece in the Dallas Morning News:
Of the 500,000 Hispanics who have lost their jobs since January 2007, he estimates 60,000 are illegal immigrants from Mexico. Some have been forced to take jobs that pay much less. "I have interviewed migrants, and they tell me they lost a job in construction at $15 an hour and now are washing dishes for $7 an hour," he said.
An illegal immigrant lost his job? Well, I seem to have also lost my violin. You should be counting your lucky stars you even have a job, nevermind the fact that you have health care, education, and a cluster of American cities whose police forces aren't even allowed to ask you about your immigration status.
Meanwhile, U.S. authorities are deporting Mexican immigrants at a rate not seen in 50 years, including more than 208,000 "removals" from the U.S. interior in the current fiscal year, which ends this month.
"Mexican immigrants?" Do we just go around deporting Mexican people who immigrated here legally? America must be a racist country! Try describing them as "illegal" Mexican immigrants and you'll be closer to the truth.

The "rate not seen in 50 years" might have something to do with the fact that we're currently in the midst of what can only be described as a national emergency. It might have something to do with the fact that once illegal immigrants get here, they're 50% more likely to be on welfare than citizens.

And if we want to start deporting "immigrants," we could start with the 17% of federal prison inmates who are illegal immigrants. It would rid our nation of criminals we don't want becoming citizens anyway, and would instantly save us the millions of dollars it's currently costing to imprison them. But you won't hear this proposal from Obama or McCain. By the way, that 17% of imprisoned illegal immigrants is significant considering that illegal immigrants make up only about 3% of the country's population.

So, why don't I have any tears on my desk? Because the life boat is sinking, and there aren't enough orange floaty jackets to go around.


Persia-Pocalypse Update

September 22, 2008 |

Iran is ever-closer to the bomb and as resolute as ever. With Ahmadinejad heading to Manhattan, Israel's intelligence wheels spinning furiously, and Hamas and Hezbollah rearming themselves, we seem to have hit another crest in the up-and-down cycle of panic and apathy spurred on by the Iranian mullocracy.

On that note, here are a few related stories worth checking out:

Military Intelligence: Iran Halfway to First Nuclear Bomb :: According to the head of research for Israeli military intelligence, as Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon speeds up, the West's dedication to stopping the Islamic republic slows down. He says Iran has already enriched one-third to one-half of the uranium needed for a bomb.

Iran exploits every second the ticking clock gives them, as every second exploits our weakness in the West.

IAEA Chief: Iran Could Be Hiding Nukes :: This one is a little more unnerving and slightly more believable, given the black-market proliferation that occurred after the Soviet union dissolved, and after Pakistan's A.Q. Khan sold the power of the stars to the highest bidder.

The fact is, if Iran wanted to buy an off-the-shelf nuke, there are plenty of willing distributors. One of which, I regret to inform you, is Al-Qaeda.

Ahmadinejad: We'll Stop Any Attacker :: More rhetoric from Mr. Dinner Jacket as he claims that Iran is "not in a position to show softness toward its enemies." Coincidentally, Iran is also not in a position to be bombed into the bronze age.

The Speech Palin Never Gave :: From Haaretz, this is the text of the speech Palin was to give at the anti-Iran rally in New York. This was the rally Hillary turned down, evidently because her special "awkward" pantsuit wasn't back from the cleaners. In the speech, Palin talks of Iran's desire for a new "final solution," and speaks soberly about the threat Iran poses. From the speech:
Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York - to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan - and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him. He must be stopped.
Keep your eye on the chess game, folks.

Labels: ,

Ask Your Doctor About Palin Derangement Syndrome


Andrew Breitbart has written a column in today's Washington Post about what is increasingly being referred to as Palin Derangement Syndrome. Read it:
Palin Derangement Syndrome, a more irrational variant of the Bush contagion, doesn't require sufferers to know anything about the subject of their hatred. Anonymous, unsourced rumors fuel the fire (book banning, speaking in tongues, creationism, etc.). Lovely family photos hacked from a personal e-mail account displayed on commercial Web sites push more buttons. Asterisks from Mrs. Palin's biographical sketch - "moose hunter," "small-town mayor," "wife of champion snow machine racer" - cause excessive sweating and irregular heartbeats. She even fired a guy who Tased a 10-year-old. (Oh wait, she didn't.)

What will happen when they find out she shops at Wal-Mart?
He goes on to describe how the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Margaret Cho, while "clumsy on their lesbian training wheels," have tripped over each other in their attempts to express their distaste for Sarahcuda. Cho recently blogged, "She is evil...If you [Palin supporters] were truly Christians, you would let gays get married, and send them fucking presents from Bed Bath and Beyond!" Breitbart points out their inability to acknowledge that their own Messiah doesn't support gay marriage either.
For many, gay marriage is a key issue.

Yet none of these gilded-ghetto living haters point out that their savior, Mr. Obama, stands against gay marriage, too. Is that change Melissa Etheridge can believe in?

Like President Clinton, who supported regressive anti-gay-rights legislation such as "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, Mr. Obama gets a massive pass from the activist gay left and their stenographers in the mainstream media.

The never-reported political reality is that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama understand that key components of the Democratic Party - the black and Hispanic blocs - hold views that Brad Pitt would deem "homophobic."
Liberals, particularly the Hollywood elite, live in a bubble. They read liberal opinion pages, they watch television networks saturated with liberal ideas, and they associate only with other liberals, lest they have to descend to the level of a lowly conservative, who to them is at best a moron and at worst a hyper-religious hate-filled bigoted racist.

Hence, it's no surprise that on many a Wednesday in November, they are often left wondering where all these conservative voters came from.

Can you imagine how many heads would explode in Hollywood amidst cries of a "political ploy" if John McCain were to appoint, say, an openly gay person to a cabinet position?

Labels: ,

Pakistani Terrorists Replace Marriott Hotel Lobby With 60-Foot Crater


In an attack believed to be perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, Islamabad's Marriott Hotel was gutted by a suicide bomber killing at least 40 people and injuring over 200 others, including 2 Americans. Saturday's attack was timed to occur as Muslims were packed into the hotel restaurants, breaking fast for Ramadan.

This also marks the second attack on Western targets in a week, after last week's attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen. Here's one of the
early reports:
A massive truck bomb destroyed much of Islamabad’s most popular hotel this evening, killing at least 40 people, wounding at least 100 and leaving a crater more than 25 feet deep. Officials feared the death toll would increase by dozens as rescue teams continue work at the scene.

At approximately 8 p.m. local time, an apparent suicide bomber blew himself up as his vehicle was being checked at the security gate of the luxury Marriott Hotel. The bomb was felt as far as 15 miles away. Within 500 feet of the blast, buildings and trees were shredded by the bomb, which was believed to be the biggest in Islamabad’s history.

In the minutes after the blast, dozens of dead bodies littered what used to be the lobby of the hotel. Between the entrance and the security checkpoint, about 50 feet away, there were mounds of rubble under which more dead are feared to be buried.
Hours before the attack and less than a mile away from the hotel, Pakistan's new president Asif Ali Zardari made his first address to Parliament. Zardari, as well as Pakistan's Prime Minister, were due to dine at the Marriott the same evening, but changed their plans and avoided the blast.

Just hours after his first address as president of Pakistan, particularly stressing his desire to fight terrorism in his own country, Zardari would have been not only a victim, but a symbolic statement of the resiliance of the Islamists and their desire to use terror to dissolve democracy.

Update: The death toll is now at 53 and rising as dead bodies continue to be pulled from the rubble. Czech Ambassador Ivo Zdarek is among at least 21 foreigners killed in the blast.

Also read Bill Marriott on the bombing: "They [security personnel] had stopped the truck just outside the fortified gate. They were examining it when the bomb detonated. Sadly each member of the team was killed. These guys were defending the lives of hotel guests and their fellow co-workers. They were killed in the line of their duty."

Update: A
surveillance video recorded moments before the bomb exploded has been released:

The camera didn't capture the blast - if you look at the resulting crater you'll understand why - but it caught everything leading up to the explosion, including the driver apparently self-detonating as hotel guards closed in. The flames couldn't be extinguished before they ignited the truck bomb itself.

So, let me get this straight: Zardari and his contemporaries were supposed to be dining at the Marriott at the time of the explosion, but plans were changed at the last minute. It's been long asserted by the CIA (amongst other intelligence entities) that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency has close ties to Al-Qaeda leadership.

Hmmmmm - I wonder who would have intimate access to Pakistani leadership and be interested in sharing that information with jihadis?

Just a reminder - there are nuclear weapons in this country, and with ISI in bed with the radicals as they have been for years, no one in Pakistan can be trusted with nukes.


Duh: Ayatollah Khamenei Says Israel, Iran on "Collision Course"

September 19, 2008 |

Iran's Supreme Leader (which is like Iran's regular leader, only with extra toppings) said today that Israel and the Islamic Republic were on a "collision course" and that Iran's hostility extended not just to the government of Israel, but to the Israeli people themselves.

Let me guess: Death to America?

This might serve as a convenient reminder for the fools who believe Khamenei is "more moderate" than Ahmadinejad. From the LA Times article:
Iran's highest authority lashed out against Israel today with some of his harshest comments about the Jewish state in recent memory.

Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, the black-turbaned ayatollah who is Iran's top political and military figure, said that Iran's hostility to Israel extended to the Israeli people, as well as the government, brushing aside recent peaceful overtures by top Iranian officials to ordinary people in the Jewish state.
I love when I hear people dismiss the threat posed by Ahmadinejad by saying that he's "just a puppet," and that "the real power is in the hands of the Ayatollah." While this is true, you're completely missing the point. The Ayatollah is responsible for putting Ahmadinejad into power in the first place, after a sham election which was rigged to ensure his victory.

Are these people even listening to themselves? The man who threatens other nations, denies the holocaust ever happened, and executes gays is the puppet, and you don't worry about the motives of the puppetmaster?

Here's some more rhetoric from Iran's Islamist leader:

January 2nd, 2005
: "Today, the issue of the Islamic revival has spread from east, or at least from Pakistan, to the west and North Africa. The people are demanding Islam...this is a great threat to America. They admit that their interests are threatened and they are correct."

September 4th, 2005
: "The only way to confront the Zionist enemy is the continuation and fortification of resistance and Jihad."

February 20th, 2006
: "The only way to succeed is to continue to resist the [Israeli] occupation...The Palestinian people knew voting for Hamas marks the continuation of fighting against the Zionist occupation regime."

July 17th, 2006
: "This regime [Israel] is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world." On Hezbollah disarming: "This will never happen."

July 28th, 2007
: "The Zionist regime and the American government are the main enemies of Iran, and hatred for America is deepening every day around the globe."

Khamenei is right about one thing. It's gonna get ugly.

Labels: ,

Biden to Wealthy Americans: Pay Higher Taxes You Unpatriotic Snobs

September 18, 2008 |

Alright, so maybe my headline is a little sensational, but remember, this is coming from Joe Biden - the man whose Senate majority leader said that the income tax is "voluntary."

Biden is now telling Americans who will pay higher taxes under Obama's economic plan that "it's time to be patriotic." Patriotism apparently means allowing the Federal government to take a larger slice of your paycheck.
I apologize in advance for the "Biden smile." Watch:

I would assume most Americans would rather elect someone who will better handle the money Uncle Sam is already taking from them, rather than someone who demands they relinquish more of their income to prove their "patriotism."

This is of course completely disregarding the fact that Biden's point about paying higher taxes to help an economy in crisis is completely baseless. Taxes have nothing to do with the credit crisis, the housing market, or government bailouts. Apparently Joe wasn't aware of this inconvenient truth, as he uttered what would be considered a gaffe (if a Republican said it):
"We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what’s caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John wants to continue. What’s caused this is the failure to have regulation so that, in fact — John talks about these CEOs getting these big bailout packages."
Sorry Joe. You're talking about two separate issues. Oh, and if you want to talk about CEOs getting big bailout packages, I can think of two Fannie/Freddie CEOs who fit the description: Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, currently serving as Barack Obama's economic advisers.

If Democrats really wanted to increase the amount of money flowing into our already-bloated government, they'd keep their mouth shut about "tax cuts for the rich." But alas, they aren't taking more money from the rich to fund government - they're redistributing it in the form of tax credits, which is what you get when you create a "tax break" for someone who doesn't pay taxes.

That's called buying votes, and while there is a growing portion of Americans opting to vote for a living rather than work for one, don't look for Biden to question their patriotism.

Update: McCain has already pounced on Biden's monumentally clueless statement, releasing this ad...

Something else I find interesting (though not surprising) is the fact that the media is only focusing on Obama's plans in regard to income taxes; no one is talking about what effects his capital-gains and corporate tax increases will have. Does Obama think that businesses will just suck it up and eat the higher costs? They won't.

If your company's cost of doing business goes up because you're forced to hand over more of your capital to the government, how are you going to offset that cost? You'll either have to raise prices on consumers (particularly affecting the middle-class, Obama), eliminate jobs (which puts more people out of work, Obama), or pack up shop and move overseas (which is what you claim you're trying to prevent by raising taxes in the first place, Obama).

In fact, depending on how much of a bite Uncle Sam is taking out of your resources, you might do all of the above. If I may use Barack's own words...he just doesn't get it.

Labels: ,

Shocker: University Professor Assigns Anti-Palin Essay Assignment


Big surprise, right? If the professor was trying to get the kids to think critically, it could actually benefit conservative students, because they would be forced to scrutinize Palin's character and record instead of accepting her at face value based on her image - something many Obama supporters don't seem to hesitate with. Click the image below to read the local CBS report and watch the video.

Click to watch the video.

But instead of a healthy assignment that stressed critical thinking, the purpose of the assignment was to "teach" the students what a fraud Sarah Palin is. One student even said that "the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them." The intention of the assignment was to criticize the "fairy tale image of Sarah Palin" presented by Republicans. You aren't going to find any Marxist professors, America-hating racists, or domestic terrorists of the kind an exposé of a certain Democrat candidate would unearth.

Parents, this is what you're getting for $50k a year. According to the local news article, school officials are investigating claims of "bias, harassment, and bullying." Bias in a university classroom? Surely you jest!

I would like to think that for every one of these stories that comes to light, more professors with the same predisposition for "bias and harassment" check themselves. Sadly, I fear it's more likely that they simply devise more subtle means of indoctrination.


Soy Barack Obama, y Apruebo Este Desastre


Barry has released yet another attack ad, after vowing to "take off the gloves." You might want to sit down for this one. It's in Spanish, obviously because everyone speaks Spanish, and certainly not because he's trying to reel in a particular demographic. The ad attempts to link McCain to Rush Limbaugh, takes Rush's words (as much as he irks me) out of context, and tries to paint John McCain as a racist. Watch.

If your internal translator is broken:
"They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with...the intolerance...they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."

(Then, the ad shows two quotes from Rush Limbaugh, who is apparently a McCain spokesperson)

"Stupid and unskilled Mexicans"

"Shut up or get out!"

(The narrator continues)

"John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that tells us lies to get our vote - and another, worse still, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of the working families. John McCain - more of the same Republican tricks."
First, get all the laughs out of your system before reading on. The sad truth is, if you're an illegal immigrant already in America and trying to attain citizenship without "going to the back of the line," Señor McCain is probably your best friend.

There are major problems linking McCain to Rush Limbaugh. If there was one issue on which the cigar-chomping blowhard differed with McCain, it was illegal immigration. Limbaugh also apparently doesn't particularly care for him. The Obama ad makes it seem like they go golfing on the weekends and have private jet races. Either way, Rush wasn't too happy, as was evidenced by an email written in response to the ad:
"Obama is now stoking racism in the country," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "Obama is a disgrace - he wants the public to think he is Mr. Nice Guy while his thugs are in Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and he runs race-baiting ads and lies about what he has done and what McCain has done."
At this point I'd like to remind you of the grand treatment immigrants to Mexico receive. Do you think Mexico has bilingual education? Bilingual ballots on election day? Do you think illegal immigrants to Mexico are entitled to welfare or food stamps? Do you think a third-world country like Mexico is going to let millions of people (skilled or otherwise) flood across its borders from somewhere like Guatemala?

Do you think Mexico would sit back and watch you avoid paying taxes while sending millions of Mexican pesos back to family members in your native country?

Do you really think you'd have the right to organize a political group and protest in the streets, waving the flag of your homeland, bad-mouthing Mexico's president, and showing contempt for the laws of the country you so badly want to make your home?

The answer, of course, is no.

And again, linking John McCain to something Rush Limbaugh said is like taking a Bill Maher or Joy Behar quote and trying to tie it to Obama. It would be just as unfair and irrelevant as what Barry did with this ad.

After all, if Obama wants to use talk show hosts as surrogates, are liberal talkers from the ever-sinking Air America up for grabs? Take this gem for example, from woman-of-the-left Randi Rhodes, in which she makes the backhanded claim that Sarah Palin will abuse your children:

In addition to accusing Sarahcuda of being at best a latent child molester, Randi has also claimed that John McCain was treated like a "prince" by his captors in Vietnam. Yet somehow, you'll go on believing that conservatives are the ones who spew "hate speech."

Update: Limbaugh has penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today accusing Obama of exploiting racial tensions and resorting to "segregationist" fear-mongering. It's worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

We've made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.

Eh, he's right.

Labels: ,

Hillary to Jews: Sorry I Can't Protest Against Ahmadinejad, Sarah Palin Might Be There

September 17, 2008 |

As I reported last week, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be visiting New York City at the end of this month. Naturally, given his holocaust denial and repeated threats to destroy Israel, Manhattan's Jewish population isn't too pleased. Several Jewish organizations are planning a "Stop Iran" rally to coincide with Ahmadinejad's visit to the United Nations.

Among the confirmed speakers slated to appear at the rally were Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and author Elie Wiesel. However "Clinton officials" soon learned of Palin's scheduled appearance, and decided that while a Democrat speaking at an anti-Iran protest was fine, a Republican speaker suddenly turned the rally into a "partisan political event."

Needless to say, Hillary is taking her ball and going home:
"We are pleased to inform you that the keynote speakers at the "Stop Iran. Now!" Rally are confirmed to be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Governor Sarah Palin and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel," read an e-mail from a leader of a Jewish group planning the event.

But the curtain came down on the comedy sketch-turned-reality before the duo ever hit the stage: Clinton officials soon said they had not been told Palin would be on hand - and that her presence, which made the event a political one, would mean the absence of the New York senator.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."
The McCain/Palin campaign released a statement in response to Hillary's decision to put concern over potential awkwardness above speaking out against a man who hangs homosexuals and stones women:
"Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat."
In fact, by saying "to hell with it," Clinton has made this a political event. Why wasn't it a political event when Obama and McCain appeared together at ground zero to commemorate 9/11?

Of course, she could just be worried about sniper fire.


Duh: Bipartisan Report Says Nuclear Energy Would Help America


Third Way, a non-partisan think tank, issued a joint report with the Heritage Foundation which concluded that "a rebirth of nuclear energy would deliver vast economic and environmental benefits to the United States." This was of course the highly anticipated follow-up to their well-received "The Sky is Blue" report.
Adam Sacks, director of Oxford Economics USA, said building 53 new plants in the United States would result in reduced demand for fossil fuels domestically and could save the U.S. up to $9 billion a year in energy imports, most of which would be petroleum imports.

The expansion of nuclear power will create many jobs, many of them high-paying, technical jobs, Sacks says.
Update: More developments regarding another piece of the energy puzzle - offshore drilling. The House voted late yesterday to approve offshore drilling. Sweet, now we can start drilling, right? Not so fast.

The vote allows oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but only if the drilling takes place "50 or more miles out to sea," despite the fact that most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil below coastal waters are within 50 miles of land, and as such are still off-limits. From Breitbart:

An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.

"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason...so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."

And Pelosi wonders why her approval rating is lower than George Bush's.


Surprise: Obama Tried to Delay Iraq Withdrawal Until After Election


Yet another example of how Barack Obama is nothing more than a politician, and in no way represents anything close to "change from politics as usual." Amir Taheri, an Iranian born journalist and author, first brought this story in an editorial in Monday's New York Post.

The article detailed how, even as he campaigned on the platform of a speedy withdrawal from the war that "should have never been authorized and should have never been waged," Obama met in private with Iraqi leaders and attempted to "persuade [them] to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence."

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari can vouch for Taheri's claims. He says:

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open."

Then, the American Spectator confirmed the allegations, and described the Obama campaigns headaches after Taheri's column:
The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
Today, Taheri has written another column rebuking Obama's defense, with even more damning statements from Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari:
In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: "Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administration next year and agree on some issues and matters."

Zebari continues: "I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do."

In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, while Zebari was urging him not to "waste time."
If McCain has a pair, he'll be attending the debates with this card up his sleeve. As much as you and I loathe Bush, please recognize that if this is true, Barack Obama undermined the current administration to further his political ambitions. Anyone in reality knows Barry simply cares about being the one who history will say stood up and stopped the most unpopular war in American history. If Bush and the Iraqis draw up a withdrawal agreement before Obama takes office, all he'd be doing is carrying out the previously-agreed-upon-plan, and would hardly be credited with stopping the war.

I'll sum up with a quote from Harry Truman. Obama might want to take this to heart if he still thinks "change we can believe in" is more than just a campaign slogan:

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." -Harry S. Truman

Update: The McCain campaign has released a statement in response to this story. From Senior McCain/Palin Adviser Randy Scheunemann
"At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power.

"If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting.
The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation."
Update: More evidence emerging, this time from July 2008, that the freshman senator from Illinois was indeed interfering in an attempt to stall the Iraqi government until after the presidential election:
[Foreign Minister Zebari] said that Mr. Obama had asked him: "Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few more months in office."

Labels: ,

hits counter