The polar bears that climate change alarmists claim are endangered by global warming are doing just fine, thank you.
Al Gore and other alarmists have warned that higher global temperatures due to greenhouse gases could lead to the melting of the polar ice caps. That would threaten the polar bears' efforts to find food and survive.
But due to colder than usual subarctic weather this year, healthier polar bears are being spotted along the Hudson Bay coast in Canada, according to a release from PR news wire.
"The late break-up of ice this year on Hudson Bay means the polar bears, which rely on sea ice to live, have been given more time during spring and summer to hunt and eat seals, and this has allowed them to gain important weight to live off of until freeze-up," said Robert Buchanan, president of Polar Bears International.
Daryll Hedman, a regional wildlife manager for Manitoba Conservation in Canada, said polar bears remain on the Hudson Bay ice for as long as possible so they can feed, and this year the ice was so thick that they stayed there for an extra two weeks, resulting in fatter, healthier bears this summer.
On a related front: With many Democrats still clamoring for cap-and-trade legislation to curb carbon emissions in response to global warming fears, the outgoing leader of the environmental group Greenpeace has retracted an assertion about Arctic ice.
In a July 15 release entitled "Urgent Action Needed as Arctic Ice Melts," Greenpeace said there will be an ice-free Arctic by the year 2030 due to global warming.
Under questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur, Gerd Leipold, the retiring Greenpeace leader, stated, "I don't think it will be melting by 2030 . . . That may have been a mistake."
In a debate with a co-worker, I emailed him thesetwo links (among others that I have already posted in the past here) to open up his mind a little to the fact that there is no "consensus" (only at the alter of Al Gore, of course) on "global warming," or "climate change." By the way, I feel obligated to agree with this assertion from Canada's National Post, "I thought it most interesting last week when I read that Al Gore was all but bankrupt (relatively) ten years ago when his net worth was under $2 million. Now he is poised to join the Billionaires club by selling vaporware-carbon credits"
If you don't like the president's policies, you're obviously a racist. Just shut up, close your eyes and dive in! Hey Cubans like it...or so we're told. Why do all black far-left liberal Democrats project their own moral deficiencies?
Oh man, it is over! With all that's gone down, with Obama's numbers crashing to Earth, with Pelosi caught in a big, fat lie; and now with this revelation about the budget reconciliation numbers that they tried to sneak out (amazingly at all) they are done! The economy is in the tank and the "stimulus" isn't and will not work. Obama is a one-termer. In the 2010 Congressional elections, the Dems are going to get their clocks cleaned! Put a fork in 'em.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, a medical doctor who served as governor of Vermont, said at a town hall meeting on Tuesday night that Democrats in Congress did not include tort reform in the health care bill because they were fearful of “taking on” the trial lawyers.
*Sorry, the video would not play correctly when embeded. But his quote was:
“This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. Here is why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that the more stuff you put in, the more enemies you make, right? And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. Now, that’s the truth.”
So is Dean speaking "truth to power?" Apparently so.
But, to be fair, as a commentor at HotAir noted,
"...the Republicans haven’t done much better in trying to force tort reform. Oh sure, they put up a little minor “stink” once in awhile, but they don’t really push it, just enough to be able to say “I support tort reform”. The dems are infinitely worse on this, but Republicans don’t have many successes. Ironically the one success, in 2005, a few dems did hop on board. Leiberman, Schumar, etc."
"...the CIA "implemented training programs for interrogators and debriefers." By early 2003 it had created guidelines on detention and interrogation and required "individuals engaged in or supporting interrogations be made aware of the guidelines and sign an acknowledgment that they have read them." The guidelines also made "formal the existing . . . practice of requiring the field to obtain specific Headquarters approvals prior to the application of all EITs." This was hardly a rogue CIA."
"Congress also knew about it. The IG report belies House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claims that she wasn't told about all this. "In the fall of 2002, the Agency briefed the leadership of the Congressional Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of both standard techniques and EITs. . . . Representatives . . . continued to brief the leadership of the Intelligence Oversight Committees on the use of EITs and detentions in February and March 2003. The [CIA] General Counsel says that none of the participants expressed any concern about the techniques or the Program . . ." Ditto in September 2003."
"...The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York."
"...the facts speak loudly that they caused detainees to yield important information." "During the course of this review, a number of Agency officers expressed unsolicited concern about the possibility of recrimination or legal action resulting from their participation. . . . officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities . . . they feared that the Agency would not stand behind them." Another said, "Ten years from now we're going to be sorry we're doing this . . . [but] it has to be done."
"So naturally, we are reinvestigating the CIA. In a sane world, Pelosi would be on the hot seat, the grandstanders who decried Bush’s antiterror policies would be discredited, and Dick Cheney would be taking a victory lap. But we have long since passed the point at which facts matter. The Obama team shamelessly airbrushes the past, rejects the techniques that kept us safe, and continues with full prosecutorial zeal against what it perceives as the real enemies—the intelligence operatives and Bush officials who successfully extracted key information." -Jennifer Rubin, commentarymagazine.com
So the CIA and it's operatives, including the actual interrogators, got psychologists to make sure the detainees would suffer no long-term ill affects, they then performed the EIT's, including water-boarding-which has yet to be defined as torture by any real consensus-got the results they needed (from three detainees, mind you) halted multiple terrorist plots and saved countless American and international lives in the process. With the Speaker of the House having full foreknowledge of it all.
But you know, as bad as this looks on her, although not at all surprising; this may be a nice little distraction from the Obamacare fiasco. Which one is less embarrassing for her and the Dems to run with do you think?
Damn media is simply more corrupt than what they say Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Nixon and any other Republican they lose sleep over lying and trying to convict in the eyes of the public are, combined! They simply cannot be trusted! This information was there all the time in black and white and it is infuriating how biased and deceptive they really are! What weasels!
Senator Edward Kennedy, the patriarch of the mythical Kennedy family and the conscience of the Democrat party died late last night from brain cancer that he had been battling since last year. Undoubtedly there will be months of eulogies on the major network news programs and there will be not-so-nice "tributes" about the man on the internet, no matter what you thought of the man personally or of his political policies and scandals (and there were many, some unforgivable) he was respected on both sides of the isle and helped a lot of people throughout his career.
Of course there will always be this, from ABC, no less.
Janene Garofalo. Can't she just go back to making really crappy, unfunny movies? Why does she feel she must burden, bore and disgust everyone with her ridiculous ignorance? Well, she's at it again in all her left-wing wacko glory. First she called tea-party supporters "redneck racists" (and like the rest of the left and media, the disgusting sexual term of "tea-baggers") but this time she has resorted to calling these patriots that are concerned for their health care futures and simply aren't swallowing what the president and Congress is trying to force-feed them, "retarded." "Functionally retarded adults," to be exact.
"This is not politics, this is neuroscience. It is purely limbic brain activity - this emotion over being angry that there's a black guy in office, with the people showing up armed to the health care meetings - to whatever, the town halls. But it's just, and these tea baggers. It makes me soul sick."
To quote President Obama during the presidential campaign, "Spare me the phony outrage."
At least Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are mildly entertaining in their delusions of grandeur, but this woman? Seriously, she really is creepy.
And this time, they're editing video to prove that it's the MSM causing, and even creating the racial divide. You'll notice how the edited video shows a man with a semi-automatic weapon (which he is legally and constitutionally entitled to have) at a health care reform rally being photographed by the media. But when the camera begins to pan up to show his face (or least a profile) the video is edited so you don't see it. Why? Because it turns out the man was black. Imagine that. I mean, you can't have an intentionally misleading story about racist, right-wing, gun-toting extremists using a patriotic black man, now can you? You know? Maybe these are the people that are inciting the "hatred." It can't be that people are standing up to government policy can it? Nah. It has to be racism. Especially if it's made up.
Here is the man in question:
Even with the doctored video, the MSNBC "experts" still go on like they have no idea that their narrative is false. Disgusting. But, not surprising. How do all 10 of you MSNBC watchers feel about being mislead...constantly? First it's a picture of the president with a Hitler mustache, falsely and excessively attributed to the right, when in fact it was initiated by a left-wing activist. Now you have doctoed video and misleading narrative by a "major" left-wing news channel. Do you see how the right is lied about and how the MSM helps to re-write history?
DYLAN RATIGAN: Still to come at the Morning Meeting, protesters packing heat at town hall meetings, it continues to happen. Is this freedom of speech or an implied threat? Even if it is legal? Guns at town hall meetings.
DYLAN RATIGAN: Alright, guns at town hall rallies, you’re probably familiar. Well, people continue to do it, packing heat at these health care protests. Contessa has the latest. What’s going on?
CONTESSA BREWER: Yeah, we are closely following here, Dylan, town halls and other events around the country today to see who shows up and what they bring with them. More than 20 town halls scheduled from east-to-west, Virginia to Washington state. Yesterday, as President Obama addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix. A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms. And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun. And the reason we’re talking about this, a lot of talk here, Dylan, because people feel like, yes, there are Second Amendment rights for sure but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.
TOURE: It sounds simplistic when you put it that way, but it is real that there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president. Just several upheavals in the country over the last ten years from 9/11, to the economic tsunami, to the black man becoming president and, you know, we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.
BREWER: So do you – do you think if Barack Obama were white, though, that you would not see people showing up – let’s say if it were Bill Clinton – you would not see people showing up with weapons strapped to their legs?
TOURE: You know, I don’t know. I don’t know. That – I mean-
RATIGAN: I think it’s unknowable. The context-
TOURE: -that’s hard to say. It is unknowable. But you do see a rise in hate group activity throughout the country.
RATIGAN: But I think that the combination of the bank bailout coming through and the conversation where people know that they were stolen from in that. They may not know how, but they know that $14 dollars of American taxpayer money was used and a bunch of people kept the money and know the health insurance thing, they know all the – and then they get the variable of a black president on top of all these other things and that’s the move – the cherry on top, if you will, to the accumulated frustration for folks. I mean that’s- TOURE: I’m not going to be surprised if we see somebody get a chance and take a chance and really try to hurt him or really- RATIGAN: Of course.
TOURE: You know, and I mean it’s up to the Secret Service to make sure that it doesn’t actually become history, but, you know, I think we’re going to see somebody, you know, some sort of Squeaky From, some sort of Mark Hinckley figure, because there’s so much anger in the country about him, about what’s going on with government.
RATIGAN: Angry at government and racism, you put those two together.
BREWER: But also because when Democratic presidents take over – I mean, during the Clinton administration, we did see a weapons ban on these semiautomatic assault weapons and did you see people showing up with guns to prove a point? You know-
RATIGAN: No, but the economy was good then and they were, at that point, passing a law that allowed the largest financial ponzi scheme ever in ‘99. So times were good, right? In other words, when people have jobs and people are – feel like they can get rich and the credit is flowing and you’ve got a more comfortable white president, socially-
BREWER: But don’t you think a lot of people are just uncomfortable with guns, too?
RATIGAN: -the temperature is lower.
BREWER: I mean if you show up-
RATIGAN: Of course.
BREWER: A lot of people aren’t exposed to weapons.
TOURE: Look, we can’t separate the mood of the country, which is very uncertain, there’s a lot of tumult going on from there being a black president. And the two things fit and feed each other and so many people are happy about it and feel it’s a new post-racial America and so many people are still mad about a black person, and black people in general, reaching that level. RATIGAN: And then again, you combine that with the reality of unemployment, the reality of health care, there are all of these sort of frust – real things that are frustrating people who feel the government’s not delivering to them what they feel it should. And then you create this-
TOURE: Look, I mean you can’t separate the health care debate from anger at government in general.
RATIGAN: Of course.
TOURE: We’ve seen these major government moves with the bank bailout, with what happened in Detroit, now here comes a third one. So people, when they talk about socialism, that is a real emotion of government taking over.
RATIGAN: And government taking over at the same time they’re allowing the so-called fat cats in the banks, everybody’s getting away – the status quo is getting away with it and that makes people frustrated, too, and they are.
BREWER: Just to put a finer point on this, just because people are worried about the government getting too big and taking power where it should not, does not necessarily correlate to people being racist. It’s not necessarily because of-
RATIGAN: That’s true, but I would say people frustrated with the government raises the overall temperature.
RATIGAN: Then, totally unrelated, you would install a black president at a time when the temperature is higher and you just have a more volatile combination, where people have to behave in a more conscious manner or we’re going to have problems. TOURE: I mean, look, there’s no – I mean, you just know that there is a significant swath of the country that is still angry about there being a black person as president and will do whatever they have to do to show their anger.
BREWER: I do.
RATIGAN: But, again, there are different items that come together that can be a bad combination.
The FCC has created a new chief position of Diversity officer (if you can believe that) Mark Lloyd, and he's and he's already at work at the plan of the far-left members of Congress to purge conservative radio. Lloyd hasn't hidden his disdain for conservative radio. As explained in this video, the free market system and the benefits of conservative radio is now too much of a disadvantage, so he wants to have successful independent radio stations that carry right-leaning talk programs pay the equal amount of their entire operating budget as a tax to "help" left-leaning programs that have been rejected by the public be more competitive. In other words Lloyd wants the highly successful independent stations hand over cash to their competitors to help them put themselves out of business. In the name of diversity.
Hmm. I guess a certain ditzy, former Alaska governor was right afterall. By the way, if this didn't exist and it was all just rumor and fear-mongering? How could they do away with something that didn't exist?
He's been selling Americans the proverbial swampland for months now. Everything from not knowing radicals, his radical influences, domestic terrorists, his involvement in Chicago thug politics, racism, everything.
Now comes the latest act of "Democrat Presidents Know Best." Yet more lies about his attempted grip on the whole Health Care debacle. Oops, I hope this doesn't put me on "the list." This guy is something else. When will he just start being honest and just try to fix the system instead of trying to destroy it and then sell it anew as "reform?"
So President Obama is still filling his townhalls with hand-picked supporters. How obvious can you get? If this wasn't in another attempt to sell his Health Care initiative, then Nancy Pelosi is as righteous as the Virgin Mary.
Did this girl that supposedly saw "mean things" on signs by protesters, after reading her "random" question, get her allowance doubled? Maybe we should ask her mother, Obama campaign contributer, Kathleen Manning.
A great breakdown in a post by Gary P at Sarah Palin Information Blog.
Three questions, 1) How dumb does Obama think his detractors are? 2) How much lower can he go? And 3) How more deceitful can he be?
Having a bad day Ms. Secretary? What is it with the Clintons' that makes them blow up at the simplest questions? This time Hillary snapped at a young student who asked (through an interpretor) what her husband, former president, Bill Clinton, thought of the economy, "You want to know what my husband thinks? My husband is not the Secretary of State, I am! If you want my opinion, I'll give it to you. I'm not going to channel my husband!" She didn't seem to be all that angry. But definitely very defencive.
Touchy. Do you think she's still sensitive about losing to Obama? Or is it just that famous Clinton temper?
One would suspect this would be every parents nightmare, only to to turn into a joyful dream. How could this happen? There have been comedy skits made about this type of scenario (although I'm sure an infant was not a part of it) as I'm sure most of us have wondered what if?
"This is a very unusual case," said Ernesto Weber, head of paediatric intensive care at the hospital.
Comment what you will if you wish to join the House of Nuttery. But I thought everyone may like to see this before the left and the secularists have a field day with this one. Coming from the secularist magazine, Human Inquiry, it's not all that surprising. And they say the Bible is a fable? It is to laugh.
Remember the phony outrage and blame the Democrats put on President Bush about the high gas prices (among other things) that the Dems were crying foul about when he was still in office. Especially the fallacy about how he controlled them?
Adrienne over at Sarah Palin 2012 reminds us of how, suddenly, to the Dems and the MSM, blaming Bush and the GOP isn't such a point of interest anymore. Hmm.
The MSM deliberately ignores Nancy Pelosi, but goes after Rush Limbaugh's opinion on her and the media itself. They marginalize the people, call them Nazis and "teabaggers", yet protect the hypocrites. This is really getting crazy and enraging. They lie about "violence" (caused by Obama's SEIU union thugs) and then make up the rest. They simply have no answers for the people. This all a distraction so they hope no one will ask the hard questions. Incredible.
Since the guy is such a champion for abortion, you think his parents could have set an example.
Why does this moron have a job? Why does anyone give him any credibility anymore? Not only should he not be allowed to write for the New York Times, he shouldn't be allowed to write on the sidewalk with chalk! Check out this idiotic, uninformed crap that he came up with this time. Seriously, I know I go off on the left when they project their own racism and violence onto the left, but let me say this, I would really like to kick this guy in the teeth. I thought Michael Moore and Kieth Olbermann were full of it. We now have a new king of bull.
And his queen should be Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Does the left have no other card to play? Are they really this hate-filled and dense? People are standing up for what they believe in. They're standing up to what they feel is socialist government policies that simply doesn't represent them and they're letting their voices be heard (although the Obama administation and his media enablers are doing everything they can to marginilize them as nazis, brownshirts and again, disgustingly, "tea-baggers")
From MSNBC's HARDBALL:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say "I don't like the idea of having a black president"? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I'm just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.
Some of the explanations from the liberals on the panel (conservatives, Alex Castellanos and Bill Bennett were also invited and also outnumbered) were to say the least, typical.
Did you catch some of that? Jeffery Toobin said, “I’m giving him a B. You know- he’s off to a decent start. He got a stimulus package planned. It passed." Yeah, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, duh! "It seems like it’s having some impact" Um, where? Oh, that .1% drop in unemployment?"But the economy stinks and he’s the president and the buck stops there.” David Gergen gave him a B+ and said, “I think that this economy was going over a cliff when he took office. He stopped us from going over a cliff. I think they made some mistakes on their policy. Stimulus bill wasn’t big enough. I think they haven’t moved the foreclosure bill very well. I don’t think they moved credit very well. But he’s got us basically back on a better track. He’s got real problems ahead with unemployment.”
Bennett and Castellanos gave Obama a D on the economy. Castellanos explained, “I'll give him a D, a ‘D’ for debt. He’s indebted the country for generations- spent a lot more than he should have.”
And of course, Paul Begala in typical fashion gave Obama an overall B. His reasoning? “Give him a B for Bush. He inherited the debt from Bush. He’s trying to dig us out of that ditch, Mr. Castellanos.”
If McCain had won and was in the same hole with economy (mind you he wouldn't have-or been able to-rush a $800 billion "stimulus" through Congress ) do you think there would have been such love and understanding for him? Nah. Me neither.
BORGER: "I would- I would give him a B, and I think no matter what you think about what he’s done on health care, you have to grade this president on a curve, because he was dealt such a bad hand. You know, there are two things that he had. He had the agenda he campaigned on..." Which he is still campaigning for! "...and the agenda that was handed to him when he became president because of the economic situation. He made it harder for himself because hedecided he could keep his original agenda, and take care of the economic problems, and as a result, I believe he is spread a little too thin and trying to do too much. But I still give him a B."
Surprise, surprise. The Stimulus wasn't big enough?? Coo-coo.
How much do you want to bet the Dems will credit the "stimulus" for this? And watch Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson just play this right up. "It's working, it's working!! Isn't the president wonderful?! His halo is shining again!" People it's .1%. Calm down. People are still losing jobs. They still don't give Bush credit for 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007; but oh, they'll give Obama credit for a .1% drop in unemployment, yet we don't even fully know if he's responsible for it or not. Not that it's anything to get excited over. It'll rise again. Bank on it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Regardless of his blatant ignorance and disregard of the right of lawful assembly (regardless of the lies of "violence" in which normal, frustrated Americans are being compared to domestic terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh for simply standing up for their constitutional rights) he, nor any Democrat insulting the American people, will be held accountable...until the next election.
I'm telling you, they will pay for this craziness at the polls in next year. They are really slipping into a fascist madness.
Their out of the gates, folks. This is step one to liberals total control of all mediums and their attempt to destroy conservative radio. Legislate and dominate. They simply can't do it in the free-market, so now that they have control of the government, they're going to force it down your throats whether you want it or not.
Much like the CBC up here in Canada. Nobody watches it (approximately 4.6% of the population at last count watch the liberal-infested network) but we're forced to put up with it's liberal tilt and pay for it with our taxes. Prime Minister, Stephen Harper has said he wants to break it up and sell it off. That way, everybody can have their own station, their own voice, under the umbrella of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Of course, the Liberal and NDP (New Democratic Party-what a joke for a name that is, since they're more communist than the Communist Party) want none of that, because you see it would destroy their hold on the indoctrination of Canadians; especially their most vital geographic-the youth.
And that is the ultimate goal of the liberals south of the border, too. They know they're not going to win over the older, more informed populace in the free market, where their product has failed miserably, so go with the ignorant, easily-fooled generation. That and all the millions of illegals that they hope will help them achieve their one-party system. They know they simply cannot win in the free market of ideas.
They say they cannot compete and and it's unfair that they suck at the medium. They say they are not in enough markets (they don't understand that the reason for that is because no one wants to hear their liberal drivel and advertisers know their product simply doesn't sell) They say the the want and need is out there (again, despite the people ignoring it) So despite owning most of the major newspapers, all of the television networks, Hollywood, the major magazines and most of cable TV, they must have control of am radio as well. They finally figured out how to win...let the government regulate it for them. Hey, why not, their heroes, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have already shown them how it's done.
I am so tired of the bull about how George W. Bush either spent just as much or more than Obama has. Bush didn't nor never would have authorized an $787 billion "stimulus" package that had, up to this point (but don't hold your breath) little or no effect.
Blinky is really stretching it this time. Patriotic Americans practicing the constitutional right of peaceful assembly and she's seeing swastikas. I think she's having flashbacks to her 2006 congressional win after-party.
Maybe the disgrace of a Speaker is talking about this anti-swastika dissident, that she no doubt will report to "the One's" snitch-line that is now keeping tabs on patriots that have a problem with the way they feel the president is ruining their nation. Now there is no evidence, as of yet, that this information would be used to audit someone or deny benefits of any kind, but if in the future it turns out that does happen, that would indeed be an impeachable offense. Of course, good luck proving it, I suppose.
From the official White House website:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Isn't it truly ironic, if not totally despicable, that, as one commenter says, "Again proof that liberals can say anything that want, call our troops murderers, George Bush a terrorist and no one [i.e. the press]covers it or says anything."
Nevermind that the Democrats are drunk with power and have no idea how close their downfall really is (really, with the president's approval numbers now below 50% and the Senate Democrats losing support due to the economy and Obamacare-this is almost exactly the same situation that was in place for the Republican revolution of 1994) they are on a crash-course with reality.
Should anyone be surprised? Afterall, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al with their silence, fully supported the thugs of ACORN and their Black Panther protectors that threatened and intimidated voters at polling stations.
And soon, keep watch for the Secret (not so much) Obama Police Force! It's true. They're coming. Lies, huh? Fear-mongering, huh? Just wait. First you get mad and call it lies, then you'll deny their existence, then you'll apologize for them, finally you'll accept them. Zighail!
And Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats are supporting it all. They truly have lost their way. And they want to stifle and "prosecute" anyone who actually notices and dares to stop them!
At face value, give President Obama and Clinton due credit for this fantastic accomplishment (if only Smiling Jimmy could have had this much ability in 1979) but what did America give up to get them back? You don't think Lil Kim gave them a full pardon and released them for a photo op and out of the goodness of his black little heart do you? No, something was discussed and given up.
Remember, it was this same former president who gave missles to the Chinese in exchange for them to "be good" and not use them against the U.S. or her allies. Perhaps nothing "official" was said over tea or whatever, but you just know, Slick Willy must have "leaked" some sort of "unofficial" deal. It probably went something like, "You know, President Obama has nothing official to declare, but unofficially, he thinks perhaps you may like..."
That's how deals are made, afterall. Ronald Reagan and Oliver North were labeled as criminals for their saving of civilians from Iran, but Obama and Clinton are heroes? Maybe they are...this time. I'm just wondering how long it would have taken Obama and Clinton to act (if at all) if these two ladies weren't employed by Al Gore?
No kidding! William Jefferson, the disgraced former Louisiana congressman who was defended by his fellow Democrats for a being a crook, was found guilty of bribery. Is this a surprise? Why wasn't this done sooner? Why did he even go to trial?
You know, you just know, that the Dems will continue to defend him and moreover, I just bet it'll all be based on racism, of course. I mean over $400,000 in bribes? How could he defend that? Oh right, he's a Democrat. How silly of me.
There's a reason nobody's heard of this guy. No ratings, no backlash. Like it would make a difference to these people.
Really. Thsese guys need to scrape together any advertisers that would dare be dumb enough to want to lose money on their product and create the Liberal Hypocrisy Network. Malloy, Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, even Al franken could stop by when he's done playing senator (which should be in about two years) They could really lose some money then.
So this "Joker" poster that has been spreading around Los Angeles is just another reason for the race-baiters to due their knee-jerk reaction thing and play the race card. Case in point, this hypocritical article in the on-line, L.A. Weekly Columnist, Steven Mikulan, apparently thinks that this poster is racist. "The only thing missing is the noose,' he says. What, in any plane of existence does this have to do with race? I mean, what is his point? That this is a portrait of a bizarro Al Jolsen? In other words, what else is new?
I guess Mr. Mikulan didn't happen to see this picture of a "Jokered-up" Bush then?
Once again, anything said about Obama is racist, end of story. Somebody tell me when the left-wing media starts to see past their hypocritical noses. As for the poster itself, I don't get the point of using a Joker paint job to sell the point of Obama being a socialist. We just have to listen to him and pay attention to his policies for that.
It seems Ms. Douglas is forgetting her former job as an "objective" reporter and doesn't know up from down. The video in question is this one from Naked Emperor News.
By the way, if Obama is a one-termer, how long do you think it'll take the what, 13 journalists now employed by the his administration, to seamlessly go back to their old jobs and feign objectivity once again?
Finally Joy Behar was going to get hers and have her snarky little attitude force-fed back to her. Malking had to dominate the conversation or it was interruption, interruption, interruption. It's not like she, unlike Whoopi, is interested in what anybody (other than fellow libs) have to say, she's all about blaming Bush, as she clearly demonstrated.
I've been saying it for six months; if a liberal democrat stubs their toe, blame Bush. It's also interesting that they didn't deny the corruption and incompetence in the Obama administration so far, just liken it to Bush's. Like Malkin said, “You know you’ve won the argument when the ladies of the View are reduced to arguing how corrupt they (Democrats) are, and not whether.”
And what about that audience? "You're defending Hasselbeck? Booooo!"
It's not like politicians haven't lied during their campaigns just to get elected. The difference here is, Obama over-reached and the people were warned about his not taxing 95% of American families. I don't honestly know if he "lied" about what he could accomplish in his attempt to rebuild the economy, or if it was just hollow promises that he knew he couldn't get done with resorting to taxing the middle class. But if he didn't, he should have.
But something tells me this was his plan all along. He is a socialist, whether he or his apologists want to admit it or not. It wasn't all that long ago he was saying he was going to "spread the wealth," didn't he?
Press Secretary, Robert Gibb's defense of Geithner and Emanuel when asked by reporter's why why they haven't satisfactorily explain this flip in policy by the president? "They left it up to me." Nice.
Hmm. Do you think if the media were honest with the public about the quality of healthcare in America, would President Obama and the Democrats have a prayer in passing the kind of reform currently being proposed?
A showdown in September appears to be set. How long do you think anything about this will "be online for five days so the American people will be able to look at anything that passes the House and Senate," before the president signs it?
Now I personally believe that there is plenty of untapped oil all over the world. So does OPEC. and Vladimir Putin, says Russia has enough to supply Europe for the next 100 years. Not that I'd take his word for anything, but he is talking business, so he would be committing economic suicide if he were falsifying anything. Ireland's Business & Finance Portal claims that "the world still has enough proven oil reserves to provide 40 years of consumption at current rates, in spite of a slight fall last year." There is also much in reserve that has already been tapped and processed. Now, the economic and environmental aspects or even consequences may be debated (if it will even be allowed by the Al-colytes of the former Vice-President) but to say that the world's oil supply is "running out" is a bit misleading considering that are, as the article itself states, huge untapped resources in Canada. There are as well in the Gulf of Mexico,
Shell Oil president, John Hofmeister, on this interview with Meridith Viera on the Today show explains. Yes, he is a "big oil" representative, but why would that automatically make him a liar? I mean considering the network that he's being interviewed on (CBS) I'd say it would be even if he were.
But regardless, of his opinion and/or statistics, remember Jimmy Carter put the fear of the "out of oil" scare into millions of people after he screwed up the economy and allowed Iran to control the prices of petrol because of his ineptitude. It wasn't that there was no oil, it was because he was a failure at economics and foreign policy. The "no oil scare" has been regurgitated for years, decades even. Some claim that there is enough oil beneath the ocean floor (by the best conservative estimates to last the next 50, 000 years-although that number has to be suspect) The question isn't whether there is enough oil down there, it's whether technology could catch up in time to access all, should a crisis arise.
In this article, Philip V. Brennan says there is enough oil in the U.S. as well, especially Alaska.
Eventually it has to run out (or maybe not) but by then technology will be at a point where alternative fuel will be the norm. I think we'll be all right.
I can't believe this next one. It is David Letterman, after all.
Now the after-clip insults weren't needed, but the corrections were indeed factual. But the point of all this is, what if this had been Bush? I mean, where's the insults from the left? Where's the consternation from the press? Does this mean President Obama is an idiot? We all have our slip-ups now, don't we?