Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
It's Not Torture
The KSM trial thread has morphed into another discussion of "torture" which is a different subject. The video within this link is a must watch for all, especially the liberals who tacitly condone terrorism. It tells why the first waterboarding victim thanked us and asked that we waterboard his colleagues.
The Blame Game
Two things jump out at me. The first is how dishonest Obama is in his assessment. Secondly, I never in a million years thought I would miss Bill Clinton.
Weed Patch
Obama's meeting with Republicans, Tim Tebow's Super Bowl ad, Bin Laden's global warming rant or anything at all. Have at it.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Poking Fun At Racism
Chris Matthews, like many liberals, is obsessed with race. His comment that he forgot Obama was black illustrates it.
This is hilarious. To be this funny there has to be an element of truth. They nail it. Liberal commenters here often see race first, gender second, looks third and then they may look at the issues espoused.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
KSM Trial
***UPDATE***
The New York Post reports:
The trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed won't be held in lower Manhattan and could take place in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, sources said last night.
Administration officials said that no final decision had been made but that officials of the Department of Justice and the White House were working feverishly to find a venue that would be less expensive and less of a security risk than New York City.
The back-to-the-future Gitmo option was reported yesterday by Fox News and was not disputed by White House officials.
Read more here.
****
The problem isn't the venue it's the process. KSM should be in Gitmo awaiting a military tribunal. Is this the first step?
The New York Post reports:
The trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed won't be held in lower Manhattan and could take place in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, sources said last night.
Administration officials said that no final decision had been made but that officials of the Department of Justice and the White House were working feverishly to find a venue that would be less expensive and less of a security risk than New York City.
The back-to-the-future Gitmo option was reported yesterday by Fox News and was not disputed by White House officials.
Read more here.
****
The problem isn't the venue it's the process. KSM should be in Gitmo awaiting a military tribunal. Is this the first step?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
State of the Union
Guy Faulkes posted: "My grandson loves to have books read to him. One of his favorite books is largely composed of the line "The wheels of the bus go round, round, round; all through the town." In my opinion, in the state of the union speech, Mr. Obama is going to change the words to "the wheels of the bus go screech, screech, screech," as he tries to turn his bus sharply to the right (at least figuratively) in order to try to stay viable politically by appearing to move to the middle. I do not think he will really move to the right, but he is going to try to appear to do so.
Any opinions?
I'll have my laptop in my lap as I watch the speech. I invite everyone to comment as it's happening...if there is anything noteworthy. In the mean time, which is also a groovy time, let's follow Guy's lead and make a few predictions.
I predict Obama will say he didn't realize how bad Bush had messed things up even though he campaigned saying it was the worst economy in the history of the universe. He won't mention Massachusetts. He won't say as Clinton did, "The era of big government is over". Terrorism will get little if any attention. He will say "I" a bunch. The DOW will tank on Thursday.
I and Guy are on record. I'll probably come up with more and comment accordingly.
Chime in.
Any opinions?
I'll have my laptop in my lap as I watch the speech. I invite everyone to comment as it's happening...if there is anything noteworthy. In the mean time, which is also a groovy time, let's follow Guy's lead and make a few predictions.
I predict Obama will say he didn't realize how bad Bush had messed things up even though he campaigned saying it was the worst economy in the history of the universe. He won't mention Massachusetts. He won't say as Clinton did, "The era of big government is over". Terrorism will get little if any attention. He will say "I" a bunch. The DOW will tank on Thursday.
I and Guy are on record. I'll probably come up with more and comment accordingly.
Chime in.
Fair and Balanced
"In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States." -Keith Olbermann
Monday, January 25, 2010
No No-Bids?
***UPDATE***
The alleged no-bid contract for Haliburton was a big big deal to Libs on this blog (and everywhere else). But not a single one has shown an iota of concern here. The silence is deafening. It proves their lack of intellectual honesty.
****
I logged on to post this story but a commenter beat me to it. Hat tip to "Oatz". Here's his post.
James Rosen at FOX News reported:
Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.
A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will “train the next generation of legal professionals” throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby “develop the capacity of Afghanistan’s justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair.”
The legality of the arrangement as a “sole source,” or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. “They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year,” a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.
“That’s kind of weird,” said another source, who has worked on “rule of law” issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. “There’s lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work.“
Let’s see the White House spin their way out of this one.
The alleged no-bid contract for Haliburton was a big big deal to Libs on this blog (and everywhere else). But not a single one has shown an iota of concern here. The silence is deafening. It proves their lack of intellectual honesty.
****
I logged on to post this story but a commenter beat me to it. Hat tip to "Oatz". Here's his post.
James Rosen at FOX News reported:
Despite President Obama’s long history of criticizing the Bush administration for “sweetheart deals” with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.
The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide “rule of law stabilization services” in war-torn Afghanistan.
A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will “train the next generation of legal professionals” throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby “develop the capacity of Afghanistan’s justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair.”
The legality of the arrangement as a “sole source,” or no-bid, contract was made possible by virtue of a waiver signed by the USAID administrator. “They cancelled the open bid on this when they came to power earlier this year,” a source familiar with the federal contracting process told Fox News.
“That’s kind of weird,” said another source, who has worked on “rule of law” issues in both Afghanistan and Iraq, about the no-bid contract to Checchi & Company. “There’s lots of companies and non-governmental organizations that do this sort of work.“
Let’s see the White House spin their way out of this one.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Rudderless Leadership
***UPDATE***
This thread was really intended to discuss the horrible bumbling of Abdulmutallab. The title however is much broader so I thought I'd put Sarah Palin's take on his rudderlessness here. Of course that's was yesterday. Today is a new day.
****
The decision to mirandize Abdulmutallab was a huge mistake. It shows this administration does not understand our enemies or our responsibilities. This had made us less safe. The Washington Post has a scathing piece on it but because of the spot on analysis I'll link this instead. The Post article is linked within it.
This thread was really intended to discuss the horrible bumbling of Abdulmutallab. The title however is much broader so I thought I'd put Sarah Palin's take on his rudderlessness here. Of course that's was yesterday. Today is a new day.
****
The decision to mirandize Abdulmutallab was a huge mistake. It shows this administration does not understand our enemies or our responsibilities. This had made us less safe. The Washington Post has a scathing piece on it but because of the spot on analysis I'll link this instead. The Post article is linked within it.
Ellie Light
***UPDATE***
Yet more.
***UPDATE***
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
****
This is fascinating. I don't really know what to make of it other than to say nothing would surprise me. David Axlerod? The rumors are flying. This particular account has a response from "Ellie Light" in the comments.
Yet more.
***UPDATE***
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
****
This is fascinating. I don't really know what to make of it other than to say nothing would surprise me. David Axlerod? The rumors are flying. This particular account has a response from "Ellie Light" in the comments.
Meltdown at the IPCC
I linked this story about the melting Himalayan glaciers in the comments section of another thread. I think Sark linked the same article. Now we get some more insight and it won't surprise anyone except the deniers.
The IPCC is often referred to as scientist. They are not. The UN isn't either.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
What Does It Mean?
Scott Brown's victory is a seismic event. No one saw it coming. We've all heard about the 60 votes the Democrats had in the Senate. Who would of thunk Ted Kennedy's seat couldn't be taken for granted. To me, that's the lesson: Never underestimate the will of the people.
The punditry has rightly surmised chicanery will ensue. Thankfully, some Democrats seem to get it. Jim Webb (D)Virginia said, "“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process,” and “It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated." Barney Frank made similar comments and now Obama has said it too. Brown will be seated but they've got other tricks up their sleeve.
There is much to glean from this race. Many questions are raised. Conventional wisdom says heath care is dead. If so, we must give credit to Republican unity. That includes Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Maybe RINO's are better than Democrats...at least this time. Does this race indicate a resurgence of Republicans or is it a sign of the tea party movement taking hold? Will this be Obama's Waterloo? What does it tell us about the Democrats prospects for 2010?
I'm particularly interested in the liberals take on this. The party line appears to be "all politics is local". Are you buying it?
The punditry has rightly surmised chicanery will ensue. Thankfully, some Democrats seem to get it. Jim Webb (D)Virginia said, "“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process,” and “It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated." Barney Frank made similar comments and now Obama has said it too. Brown will be seated but they've got other tricks up their sleeve.
There is much to glean from this race. Many questions are raised. Conventional wisdom says heath care is dead. If so, we must give credit to Republican unity. That includes Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Maybe RINO's are better than Democrats...at least this time. Does this race indicate a resurgence of Republicans or is it a sign of the tea party movement taking hold? Will this be Obama's Waterloo? What does it tell us about the Democrats prospects for 2010?
I'm particularly interested in the liberals take on this. The party line appears to be "all politics is local". Are you buying it?
Sunday, January 17, 2010
To Be Or Not To Be
Rather that name names, I'll refrain on all counts but you know in your hearts who you are.
There has been a request to ban a commenter. The request was reasonable and well stated. So much so that a known objector to banning commenters is reconsidering his stance. Others, one brutally bombastic babe in particular, enjoy the sport of it all. I've remained silent with the hope that it would play itself out but it keeps coming back and the case is strong. The obnoxious schmuck is, after all, useless...I guess.
Okay, let's work out the standard. He adds nothing. From now on I'll decide if and what every single post adds. Make it count...or else. He's threatened violence. Anonymous commenters aren't all that dangerous in the real world. The threats do illustrate a total lack of couth. Well reasoned, civil responses are better. He's rude and insulting. Duh! He's a liberal. Is he anymore insulting than the resident idiot who constantly tells us we're racist and form our opinions from anywhere but our collective noggins? Or the horsehead that lectures us on civility while siding with the bile-spewers? No, that's just the way they roll.
Seriously, I have no intention of banning anyone. If I was so inclined, the most I would do is suggest it to Blogger. I'm not there. I suppose there is a line somewhere but until then commenters are free to scream from the mountaintops, "I HAVE NO POINT SO I'LL BE A JERK!". Whether we respond in kind, ignore or attempt to reason is up to each of us.
There has been a request to ban a commenter. The request was reasonable and well stated. So much so that a known objector to banning commenters is reconsidering his stance. Others, one brutally bombastic babe in particular, enjoy the sport of it all. I've remained silent with the hope that it would play itself out but it keeps coming back and the case is strong. The obnoxious schmuck is, after all, useless...I guess.
Okay, let's work out the standard. He adds nothing. From now on I'll decide if and what every single post adds. Make it count...or else. He's threatened violence. Anonymous commenters aren't all that dangerous in the real world. The threats do illustrate a total lack of couth. Well reasoned, civil responses are better. He's rude and insulting. Duh! He's a liberal. Is he anymore insulting than the resident idiot who constantly tells us we're racist and form our opinions from anywhere but our collective noggins? Or the horsehead that lectures us on civility while siding with the bile-spewers? No, that's just the way they roll.
Seriously, I have no intention of banning anyone. If I was so inclined, the most I would do is suggest it to Blogger. I'm not there. I suppose there is a line somewhere but until then commenters are free to scream from the mountaintops, "I HAVE NO POINT SO I'LL BE A JERK!". Whether we respond in kind, ignore or attempt to reason is up to each of us.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Say A Prayer For The People Of Haiti
When it comes to political complaining ground, Haiti is fertile. I guess we'll get to that later. It's a human tragedy. The government may very well crumble adding to the misery. There is plenty of news and video out there if you're so inclined, so I'll skip it here. For now, just say a prayer... aetheist too, just in case.
One Hand Against The Other
Ever notice how Liberals hold diametrically opposed notions simultaneously? They seem blissfully unaware that they are speaking out both sides of their mouth. I invite them to clarify some examples.
On one hand liberals claim to want a colorblind society where one is not judged by the color of their skin. On the other hand they support affirmative action which puts ones color as priority one. Please liberals, don't miss the point by saying why we need affirmative action. I see three valid responses: 1)Admit you do want to judge by the color of skin, 2) Explain how affirmative action is not judging by skin color, or 3)Show the flaw in my logic by explaining how these two opposing views don't contradict.
On one hand Bush's spending policies killed the economy. On the other hand they support Obama spending us out of debt. Is that possible?
On one hand we are warming the globe. On the other hand, global warming is the reason it's so cold.
On one hand they want bipartisanship. On the other hand they're freaking out at the prospect of loosing the "peoples seat" Ted Kennedy occupied because it will require finding a single Republican vote to end filibusters.
On one hand they claim to want civil discourse. On the other hand they hurl vile insults without reservation.
I'm sure there are more.
On one hand liberals claim to want a colorblind society where one is not judged by the color of their skin. On the other hand they support affirmative action which puts ones color as priority one. Please liberals, don't miss the point by saying why we need affirmative action. I see three valid responses: 1)Admit you do want to judge by the color of skin, 2) Explain how affirmative action is not judging by skin color, or 3)Show the flaw in my logic by explaining how these two opposing views don't contradict.
On one hand Bush's spending policies killed the economy. On the other hand they support Obama spending us out of debt. Is that possible?
On one hand we are warming the globe. On the other hand, global warming is the reason it's so cold.
On one hand they want bipartisanship. On the other hand they're freaking out at the prospect of loosing the "peoples seat" Ted Kennedy occupied because it will require finding a single Republican vote to end filibusters.
On one hand they claim to want civil discourse. On the other hand they hurl vile insults without reservation.
I'm sure there are more.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Special Election Next Tuesday
***UPDATE***
A Coakley aide roughed up a "Weekly Standard" reporter. It can't be good for Coakley.
"Coakley said she is not “privy” to the facts surrounding the incident..." (hat tip Guy Faulkes for link)
****
Thanks to Guy Faulkes for the topic and the links.
To borrow a phrase from the thought provoking and brutally bombastic Johnny Rico, "This ought to be interesting".
A Coakley aide roughed up a "Weekly Standard" reporter. It can't be good for Coakley.
"Coakley said she is not “privy” to the facts surrounding the incident..." (hat tip Guy Faulkes for link)
****
Thanks to Guy Faulkes for the topic and the links.
To borrow a phrase from the thought provoking and brutally bombastic Johnny Rico, "This ought to be interesting".
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Who Are The Racist?
There's a book out that's causing a bit of a ruckus. It's entitled "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime", by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. Of note are remarks by Harry Reid and Bill Clinton regarding Obama's race.
Harry Reid referred privately to Obama as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one". He has since apologized. I don't really have a problem with his statement in racial terms. I don't think Harry Reid is a racist but it does shine light on his view that the average American is.
The book also reveals a possible reason for the friction between Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Clinton described Obama to Kennedy this way: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee". Again, I'll give Clinton a pass. I don't think he's a racist. It makes just as much sense to infer he was attempting to appeal to Teddy's elitist side...with a few racial overtones just in case Teddy has a little streak. It turns out he didn't.
These two incidents underscore the left's obsession with race. They show how awful Obama has been for any dialog regarding race in America. It's all about the color of your skin. If only they could judge a person by the content of their character instead.
Harry Reid referred privately to Obama as a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one". He has since apologized. I don't really have a problem with his statement in racial terms. I don't think Harry Reid is a racist but it does shine light on his view that the average American is.
The book also reveals a possible reason for the friction between Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Clinton described Obama to Kennedy this way: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee". Again, I'll give Clinton a pass. I don't think he's a racist. It makes just as much sense to infer he was attempting to appeal to Teddy's elitist side...with a few racial overtones just in case Teddy has a little streak. It turns out he didn't.
These two incidents underscore the left's obsession with race. They show how awful Obama has been for any dialog regarding race in America. It's all about the color of your skin. If only they could judge a person by the content of their character instead.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Another Campaign Promise Broken
President Obama said eight times, on the record, that negotiations for the health care bill would be broadcast live on C-SPAN. The CEO of C-SPAN, Brian Lam, has written a letter urging Obama to keep his promise. Nancy Pelosi has no intention of negotiating with the Senate publically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)