Archive for February, 2010
Prediction: Barack Obama Will Choose Not To Run Again; Primary Race Will Be Hillary Clinton & Evan Bayh
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010Now, that’s a prediction, right?
Thought I’d make a big, bold dramatic statement before leaving for CPAC where I’ll be for the next few days.
Uh Oh, Bayh To Go Bye-Bye
Monday, February 15th, 2010Another moderate Democrat in what is going to end up being a very Red State in November goes down in a ball of flames. Phillip Klein says:
A popular former governor in Indiana with a long family history in the state, he would have been the strongest possible candidate. This is further indication that moderate Democrats running in red states are eager to jump ship in what they expect to be a rough November.
And here are my words to the wise in the Republican party: Don’t put up moderates in these races. The American people are going to be inclined to go Republican on principle. So, do NOT dilute strength by putting up a moderate candidate that begs for a Tea Party contender. Just don’t.
Americans are hungering for fiscal restraint. Give them what they want.
Monumental Man-Made Scientific Scandal Climategate Described As “Missteps By Scientists” By WaPo
Monday, February 15th, 2010Could the WaPo undersell the man-made scientific disaster that is the Global Warming hoax any more? I think not. Tom Maguire takes WaPo down.
As AJ Strata notes today,”I see an avalanche of bad news coming for the alarmists.” [He has a all the details, go read it.] AJ concludes:
So what have we learned since climategate? We have learned that the current warm period is not only stalled but has been cooling. We have learned that statistically it is no warmer now than a 70 years ago, before the huge increase in human CO2 production. And thanks to Dr Phil Jones finally being honest about the science, we know there is no scientific proof today is any warmer than the two previous warm periods (Medieval and Roman) that have been established science for a couple hundred years now.
So the data is bogus. The data was manipulated to be more bogus. And the manipulated bogus data was used to form a theory that would remake society as we know it.
The whole goal: control human behavior to “save the world” is more like a cult. Remember, “Global Warming is a Moral Issue.“
The Problem With Treating Terrorism As A Law Enforcement Issue–UPDATED
Monday, February 15th, 2010To understand the limitations of law enforcement when it comes to terrorism, it’s instructive to look at this issue on a small scale.
Did you see the video of the girl getting her head kicked in my malicious teenagers in the Seattle, WA bus station? That’s distressing enough–seeing security guards watch the assault happen and do nothing. One guard even walked away.
What’s worse? The girl went to police in the mall and begged for help before the crime took place.
You know, like the crotch-bombers dad contacted the consulate in Nigeria. Like that.
What Dick Cheney was banging away at again on This Week, yesterday, is the mentality of the Obama administration. It’s dangerous.
Someone who has knowledge about an act yet to happen, even someone credible (like the girl who is being followed by a gang of other kids), will not get much attention because there is no “proof” or as the Seattle police said:
“Seattle police have said they did everything they could to separate the girl from another group, but did not witness unlawful behavior before the attack.”
Kind of like the roving bands of young men in my neighborhood recently–the guys scoping out homes to rob. They aren’t precisely doing anything wrong because they’re just “taking a walk”, which isn’t illegal.
This mentality informs Janet Napolitano and President Obama and Eric Holder and everyone within the administration.
It makes the country ripe for attacks. It is dangerous.
And so, it’s not really shocking when the bully makes it through the system and then kicks the innocent’s butt in full view of everyone. That will happen more, not less, with the administration’s decisions on terrorism.
The American people have clarified how they want these events handled. After the press railed on and on about civil liberties this and that, Americans thought a law-enforcement approach might be better.
Now, having seen it action, people have are soundly against the civilian trials, closing Guantanamo and the political correctness that get’s us the Ft. Hood killer.
The American people may not like Cheney all that much, but having a badass like that making decisions about evil terrorists is a lot more comforting than a guy like Obama watching as the innocent victim gets kicked in the head because procedure needs to be followed.
UPDATED: And what do you do if you’re afraid of interrogation and capture at places like Guantanamo? You kill suspects instead.
In other words, rendition remains an option, but not Gitmo or CIA detention. For a while, we took them to Bagram, but the US has pledged to turn Bagram back to the Afghanis at the end of next year. We have almost 800 detainees in Bagram, some of whom were captured elsewhere. Karzai no longer allows us to do that, though, which means that anyone captured will have to get sent to a regular military prison, transferred to our criminal-justice system, given to another country with some interest in the detainee, or released altogether. Since capturing a prisoner entails a lot of risk to the personnel that attempt the mission, the US has increasing opted to shoot from a distance and eliminate all of the other headaches.
What do we lose in this transaction? With a network leader like Nabhan, we lose the ability to get information on a wide range of important issues, like funding, network nodes, communications techniques, and of course plots in the pipeline. Killing Nabhan makes it difficult for AQ to operate, but capturing and interrogating Nabhan would have put us in AQ’s OODA loop for a short but critical period of time, which would have led us to more terrorists and a better picture of AQ’s operations.
Podcast #3: [Andrew] Malcolm & Melissa: Biden Is A Winner!
Sunday, February 14th, 2010NOTE: This is the third and best installment of Malcolm & Melissa so far. Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times Top of the Ticket Blog and I will be doing a weekly podcast every Sunday for an hour. I hope you make it part of your routine. It’s a lot of fun!
Andrew and Melissa discuss Vice President Biden’s co-opting the Iraq war win–a war neither he nor the President believed should be waged. They also talked snow, global warming and editorial decisions. Why was the deathly luge clip played over and over? Finally, will Rahm Emanuel be a Speaker of the House? Predictions ensue….
From Andrew Malcolm who wrote about Biden this week:
Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success.
It seems that Biden, who’s from Delaware when he’s in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration’s greatest achievements.
No, really.
Here’s how Biden put it to Lar:
I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration’s other “great achievements” were so far.
Listen here or subscribe to iTunes!
Going Galt: New Jersey
Friday, February 12th, 2010
When taxes get so egregious, the rich just leave. And when taxes get too punitive in America, rich Americans will leave America. They’ll have no state to escape to.
A study by the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College was commissioned by the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce.
While other studies have examined migration of people with high incomes, this is the first to look at wealth.
It finds that between 1998 and 2003, there was a net gain in state wealth of $98 billion. Between 2004 and 2008, there was a net loss of $70 billion due to the affluent moving away.
Chamber of Commerce chairman Dennis Bone says the study shows that taxes that have risen for high earners in recent years are driving some of them away.
The study finds the migration of money hurts charitable giving and state tax revenue.
You don’t say….
Decadent Democrats And Republican Bums
Friday, February 12th, 2010
This photo [Link here] is sure to cause controversy, but nicely encapsulates the perception of the Left these days.
Did the American people really forget how vile this bunch can be when in power? I’ve considered this quite a bit. Maybe. Really, I think they remembered, hated the Republicans more for their betrayal of principles they claim to hold, and threw the bums out.
The bums didn’t listen in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Are the Republican bums listening now?
Some are.
Some Republicans still act like they’d like to be on the stage you see in that photo, there’s just not enough room right now. That’s a problem.
If and when the Republican party gets back in control, and there’s more Gang of 7 activity that slowly, but inextricably grows the government, makes D.C. more powerful, etc., there will be a bad scene.
The American people, actually the tax payers–which are only about 50% of the population, are fed up with our leaders profligate ways. Any concessions, any fat cat behavior will cause mutiny, I fear.
So yes, the Democrat party is decadent. That’s why I call them the party of “yes, yes, yes!” Still, the Republicans have been the party of maybe. That has to change.
2010 is going to be a big year. Hopefully, fiscal responsibility will be the new order of the day and we won’t see the fall of America.
Texas Has Some Interesting Ballot Measures Coming Up
Thursday, February 11th, 2010Wonder how this would play nationally:
“These ballot propositions are Texas Republicans’ chance to be heard on issues facing our state,” said Republican Party of Texas Chairman Cathie Adams. “All five of the propositions came up from the grassroots through the SREC to address serious concerns. Voters should study the questions and then use their vote to speak directly to their elected officials.”
Noting that the Democrats have no propositions on their primary ballot, Republican Party spokesman Bryan Preston added: “Apparently the Democrats don’t want to know what their primary voters think about, say, ObamaCare or the cap and tax bill. If they put those questions on the ballot, they might find out that their own primary voters are just as disenchanted with Washington Democrats as the rest of us. Or, that they’re still on the big government bandwagon – and therefore out of touch with the rest of Texas. So in their case, apparently it’s best just not to ask.”
The five ballot propositions are as follows:
Ballot Proposition #1: Photo ID
The Texas legislature should make it a priority to protect the integrity of our election process by enacting legislation that requires voters to provide valid photo identification in order to cast a ballot in any and all elections conducted in the State of Texas.
YES or NO
Ballot Proposition #2: Controlling Government Growth
Every government body in Texas should be required to limit any annual increase in its budget and spending to the combined increase of population and inflation unless it first gets voter approval to exceed the allowed annual growth or in the case of an official emergency.
YES or NO
Ballot Proposition #3: Cutting Federal Income Taxes
In addition to aggressively eliminating irresponsible federal spending, Congress should empower American citizens to stimulate the economy by Congress cutting federal income taxes for all federal taxpayers, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars on so-called “federal economic stimulus”.
YES or NO
Ballot Proposition #4: Public Acknowledgement of God
The use of the word “God”, prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.
YES or NO
Ballot Proposition #5: Sonograms
The Texas Legislature should enact legislation requiring a sonogram to be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion.
YES or NO
The primary vote is March 2, 2010.
These ballot measures are like a conservative cornucopia of goodness. Do you think they’d pass nationally?
New 9/11 Pictures
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010Distressing, but wanted to share them with you. Link here.
IPCC Admits That They’re Not A Scientific Organization
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010AJ Strata makes this stunning find from The Guardian:
The IPCC says its reports are policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers [SPM] chapters. Is that right, the Guardian asked?
“The Nobel prize was for peace not science … government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,” said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. “For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not. To make sure that it does not happen again, the IPCC should change its name and become part of something else. The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.”
WHAT?!
The IPCC was branded as a scientific organization? It passed itself off as a scientific organization.
So what was it? A political organization? AJ says:
Think about this for a moment. Now the IPCC insiders are admitting they cannot ’settle the science’ because they don’t do science and most of their ‘message’ is crafted by policy makers (with agendas of course).
Political activism masquerading as science to influence governments and create a new economic structure to control people’s energy consumption aka lives.
And it almost worked.
