Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Thursday, December 31, 2009


The spirit of Todd Beamer is alive and well. Jasper Schuringa is the hero who jumped across several seats to subdue the underwear bomber, actually burning himself in the process. There is another hero emerging and his name is Kurt Haskell and while Schuringa stood up to the underwear bomber directly, Haskell - an attorney - is standing up to his own government and, so far, is sticking to his story, possibly at great risk to himself.

Haskell is adamant that he witnessed a well-dressed individual attempt to get the underwear bomber on flight 253 without a passport. Now we learn there's even more to the story. MLIVE has the story and posts directly from Haskell's own web posts. Here is an excerpt from one of them:
"Today is the second worst day of my life after 12-25-09. Today is the day that I realized that my own country is lying to me and all of my fellow Americans. Let me explain.

Ever since I got off of Flight 253 I have been repeating what I saw in US Customs. Specifically, 1 hour after we left the plane, bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Up to this point, all of the passengers on Flight 253 stood in a small area in an evacuated luggage claim area of an airport terminal. During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry on bags with them. When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, 1 dog found something in a carry on bag of a 30 ish Indian man. This is not the so called "Sharp Dressed" man. I will refer to this man as "The man in orange". The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room. At this time he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away.

At this time an FBI agent came up to the rest of the passengers and said the following (approximate quote) "You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened (Referring to the man in orange) and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out." We were then marched out of the baggage claim area and into a long hallway. This entire time period and until we left customs, no person that wasn't a law enforcement personnel or a passenger on our flight was allowed anywhere on our floor of the terminal (or possibly the entire terminal) The FBI was so concerned during this time, that we were not allowed to use the bathroom unless we went alone with an FBI agent, we were not allowed to eat or drink, or text or call anyone. I have been repeating this same story over the last 5 days. The FBI has, since we landed, insisted that only one man was arrested for the airliner attack (contradicting my account). However, several of my fellow passengers have come over the past few days, backed up my claim, and put pressure on FBI/Customs to tell the truth. Early today, I heard from two different reporters that a federal agency (FBI or Customs) was now admitting that another man has been held (and will be held indefinitely) since our flight landed for "immigration reasons." Notice that this man was "being held" and not "arrested", which was a cute semantic ploy by the FBI to stretch the truth and not lie.
Be sure to READ IT ALL.


I usually can't stand crosstalk to the point that no one can be understood but this, for some reason, is very entertaining. The scene is Larry King interviewing a three-person panel consisting of Ron Paul, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Ben Stein. Paul once again demonstrates why he's a foreign policy buffoon despite being a domestic policy genius. He simply doesn't know a lick about the motivations, aspirations, and goals of Islam.

He assumes far too much without knowing anything about the religion. Paul actually makes the argument that the underwear bomber attempted to blow himself up along with 280 passengers because the United States is an occupier. It really gets good after Stein claims Paul's argument is anti-semitic. Also detracting from Paul's credibility on the subject is the fact that he doesn't come anywhere close to pronouncing Abdul Mutallab's name correctly.

Sorry, Ron. I'm more than happy to give you my full attention when you're talking about the need for auditing the Fed or illegal immigration but when it comes to Islam, you're out to lunch. I'll give my attention on those matters to folks like Steve Emerson, Walid Shoebat, Robert Spencer, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Craig Winn, et. al.

In the meantime, enjoy this one....

h/t to HA


This one is truly amazing. When an entity decides to police itself by insisting that certain factual statements are offensive and warrant an apology out of some sort of political correctness, we've really reached a new low. That's what happened in Seattle with an FM station called 107.7 The End. On December 28th - the day after DHS Secretary Napolitano said, "the system worked" - someone either hacked into or logged on to the station's Twitter account and made the following extremely incendiary comment:
Not all Muslims are terrorists—but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Time to accept profiling America.
Apparently ignoring the fact that the statement is actually factual, The End decided it needed to apologize anyway.

UPDATE: The End's program director responds. Details after the jump.
Yesterday, at 3:43 PM, someone logged on to alternative radio station 107.7 The End's Twitter account and posted this:

"Not all Muslims are terrorists--but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Time to accept profiling America."
The Twitterer then stuck around for the next two hours, defending his/her thoughts to some of The End's followers, before finally signing off:
"Cee ya. Until I get my own show."
By morning the comments had been deleted. In their place was this apology:

We abhor last nights twitter hacking. The End brand in no way condones the comments and apologizes. Pswrd & security measures changed.
This is an incredible level of cowardice on the part of 107.7 The End. They should actually call their station, "The End of Common Sense".

Here is a LINK to their website. Let them know how you feel.


Webmaster Mitch sent this one in from National Review. Underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is a Nigerian with ties not only to radical Muslim 9/11 Imam, al-Awlaki, who provided spiritual counsel to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan but to Yemen itself. al-Awlaki should be in American custody since 2002 when he was detained and then released at JFK airport.

al-Awlaki is now in Yemen. Half of Camp Gitmo's detention center is made up of Yemenis. Re-patrioting them to Yemen would put the United States in further danger unnecessarily.

NRO Editors Report:
Less than two weeks ago, the Obama administration repatriated to Yemen six detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It was a test. About 90 of the 200 or so remaining Gitmo detainees are Yemenis. The president would like to move toward fulfilling his promise to close Gitmo, and thus to appease the antiwar Left, by transferring most of those Yemeni jihadists back home.

On Christmas Day, we got yet another indicator of how reckless this obsession with closing Gitmo is. A well-to-do Nigerian jihadist, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, tried to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253, carrying 289 passengers and crew, as it was preparing to land in Detroit after a flight from Amsterdam. The 23-year-old Mutallab attempted to ignite an incendiary chemical bomb, the components of which he assembled in flight after smuggling them onto the aircraft. He reportedly confessed to the FBI that he had been trained and tasked for the operation by al-Qaeda in Yemen.
The absurdity of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano's words recently is not lost on them either:
There is abundant reason to credit the mutually reinforcing claims of collusion by Mutallab and al-Qaeda. Certainly, they are more believable at this time than the groundless assertion from the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, that Mutallab is not part of a broader terrorist conspiracy. That lone-wolf theory echoes the preposterous “no terrorism here” assurances the secretary offered after the Fort Hood massacre, notwithstanding solid links between the shooter and an al-Qaeda recruiter. It is nearly as absurd as Napolitano’s assertion that “the system worked” against the Christmas Day strike.
Gitmo has been slowly bleeding out its inmates for some time, meaning the ones that are left are among the most dangerous. Yet, Obama seems totally invested in appeasing that far leftwing radical base of his.



There are so many different dynamics at work here. First, keep in mind that the near catastrophic bombing of NW flight 253 happened on Friday, December 25th. On Sunday, December 27th, DHS Secretary said, "the System worked". It was the quote of the day and she was justifiably excoriated incessantly.

On Wednesday, the 30th, CBS' Harry Smith is interviewing South Carolina senator Jim DeMint who simply references Napolitano's comment presumably, to make a broader point. Not only does Smith object to it but says it's "ancient history" before telling DeMint to focus on the present instead of the past. Harry, if comments made three days earlier are "ancient history", I guess that makes the near bombing of Flight 253 pre-Cambrian. If so, why is it newsworthy?

Dynamic number 2: In light of the recent revelations that the hosts at MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program are taking live advice from the White House during the show in order to let the WH drive at least some aspect of the questioning and discussions, take note of Harry Smith's eyes in the video prior to and during his chastising DeMint. On two occasions, he appears to look off to his left as if he's being told by a producer to squash DeMint's comments.

Oh, and compare Smith's reaction to DeMint with his reaction to hearing Al Gore personally read his poem.

h/t to HAP


After reports of a first hand account that the underwear bomber attempted to board Northwest Flight 253 without a passport, this story about the TSA going to the home of two bloggers for posting the contents of an email they received is a bit disturbing.

WIRED reported:
Two bloggers received home visits from Transportation Security Administration agents Tuesday after they published a new TSA directive that revises screening procedures and puts new restrictions on passengers in the wake of a recent bombing attempt by the so-called underwear bomber.

Special agents from the TSA’s Office of Inspection interrogated two U.S. bloggers, one of them an established travel columnist, and served them each with a civil subpoena demanding information on the anonymous source that provided the TSA document.

The document, which the two bloggers published within minutes of each other Dec. 27, was sent by TSA to airlines and airports around the world and described temporary new requirements for screening passengers through Dec. 30, including conducting “pat-downs” of legs and torsos. The document, which was not classified, was posted by numerous bloggers. Information from it was also published on some airline websites.
The term, "Heavy Handed" absolutely appears to apply here. It seems like the more militant Muslims attack, the more our citizens' rights are infringed upon. These bloggers were at home with their young children.

It would seem that one of the bloggers makes a very valid point:
“They’re saying it’s a security document but it was sent to every airport and airline,” says Steven Frischling, one of the bloggers. “It was sent to Islamabad, to Riyadh and to Nigeria. So they’re looking for information about a security document sent to 10,000-plus people internationally. You can’t have a right to expect privacy after that.”

Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino said in a statement that security directives “are not for public disclosure.”
Typical bureaucrat. Avoid common sense at all costs; just cite policy.

Lastly, I found some definte irony in the underwear bomber, who is a Muslim, prompting talk of full body scans for law-abiding, non-Muslim citizens.

h/t to HA


Fox News is reporting on the thirteen state Attorneys General who are threatening to file a lawsuit against Obamacare and the bribes that helped to get it passed by the Senate. Ben Nelson's deal isn't the only one but it is the most blatant example and did put this monstrosity over the top.

FOX reported: COLUMBIA, S.C.
(AP) -- Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.

"We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed," South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
And this....
The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.
As I've written BEFORE on the Nelson deal, there are two very specific portions of the Constitution that speak to this (maybe more).
Article I, Section 9 (Limits of Congress), Part 6:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
This one should move to the top of the Supreme Court's Dockett.

13 state Attorneys General winning this lawsuit against Obama, Reid, and this health care monstrosity would be one heck of a smackdown.

h/t to GP


The Interpol story, which started when Obama signed an amendment to Executive Order 12425, has apparently heated up sufficiently enough for the New York Times and Jake Tapper to take notice. Tapper, perhaps one of the MSM's more objective reporters, seems to make an honest attempt at investigating the story, which has been getting much attention in the blogosphere.

The issue involves the amendment giving Interpol (International Police Force) immunity from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and potentially exempts Interpol from the U.S. Constitution under the Fourth Amendment. As you can imagine, both Tapper and NYT's Savage play down the concerns, which are rooted in section 2(c) of the EO, although the exemptions included other sections as well. From TAPPER:
• Section 2(c), which provided officials immunity from their property and assets being searched and confiscated; including their archives;
• the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes;
• Section 4, dealing with federal taxes;
• Section 5, dealing with Social Security; and
• Section 6, dealing with property taxes.
My take is that overreaction is indeed a concern as well. However, I don't think that should end discussion on this matter. For now, let's throw out concern for Sections 2(d), 3, 4, 5, and 6. In my view, very close attention should continue to be given to 2(c). Questions should be asked and answered.

Tapper makes some very sound and reasoned arguments for allaying any fears people may have. However, at moments, he comes across as slightly condescending.
For example, with this comment: I'm told INTERPOL didn't have a permanent office in the US until 2004, which is why it wasn’t until this month afforded the same full privileges given, say, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission by President Kennedy in 1962.
Putting Interpol in the same category as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is cute but not very relevant.

At the end of Tapper's piece - and possibly unwittingly - he actually gives an objective reader further pause while trying to pooh pooh the story. I take you to the very last paragraph:
Obama administration officials say this new executive order doesn't allow INTERPOL to do any more than they were allowed to do once Reagan recognized them as a public international organization. Though clearly the Executive Order does prohibit US law enforcement from searching and seizing INTERPOL records, officials say, those provisions can be waived by the president if need be.
With his last sentence, Tapper is conceding that the concerns of people who have a problem with this EO are indeed well founded except for the fact that "the president" can waive the immunity "if need be". He leaves off by encouraging American citizens to trust in Obama's "if need be"?! What exactly is Obama's "if need be"? Considering all of the people he's surrounded himself with, dismissing the Interpol story out of hand is a bit premature in my view. Questions should be asked and the matter should be subjected to sufficient sunlight.

If Tapper would step back and look at the last sentence of his own piece, re-thinking it, perhaps he too would feel the need to investigate further.

Onto the Charlie Savage piece a the NYT. He is certainly a bit more snarky with his analysis. Like Tapper's post, I found the ending of the Savage piece the most noteworthy:
The White House said it put out no statement with Mr. Obama’s order because it viewed the matter as uninteresting.

LaTonya Miller, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department’s Interpol bureau, said the order would have no effect on the bureau. It routinely receives and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests, she said, and will continue to do so.

“Nothing has changed,” she said. “We’ve been really concerned about all the misinformation that has been out there on the blogs.”
Perhaps if this White House was more forthcoming and, dare I say it, transparent, the concerns of people who are at least mildly disturbed by this might be more easily assuaged.

If true, and there is nothing to be concerned about, the White House should welcome people keeping a close eye on what Interpol does. In fact, they appear to be doing just the opposite by playing it down.

One last thing. Am I the only one who is concerned every time this administration refutes critics who ask tough questions as engaging in "misinformation"? Isn't that what they did when the Van Jones story broke?

HERE is the Threats Watch story from December 23rd.


I found this exchange while looking for the latest Ben Nelson ad. It was posted shortly after the Stimulus package was signed into law back in February. Larry King has both Ben Stein and Ed Schultz on his program to talk about what needs to be done to rejuvenate the ailing economy.

Far left progressive Schultz is shamed with his own words more than once in hindsight. In part 1, go to the 1:15 and 3:15 marks. At 3:45, he says, "This plan (stimulus) is going to work. It's just a matter of time."

Time's up, Ed.

In part 2, fast forward to the 1:19 mark as Ed says Obama isn't for bailouts and doesn't want to do this. And lastly, the 2:10 mark offers a gem too. Schultz, in defending stimulus, alludes to the need for health care reform. You'd think that after he was proven wrong on the Stimulus, he might have less credibility or even re-examine his paradigms. But alas, full steam ahead with healthcare these days, right Ed?

Here is one of the posts on YouTube from lv3ddip, an obvious abject liberal. I'd love to know his/her take now.

2:29 Sir, Sir, we have lost something like 7 trillon dollars of the savings of americans since Mr. Obama won the election...
The money is not out yet, and this clown says the money is lost?
Why the conservatives use comedians as their spoke persons? like this fart an the oxycontin addict.
By Stabilizing the financial system, Is he proposing to keep bailing out Wall Street?
Sir, Sir, Shut the f*** up!!!

Good job, big Ed!

Tuesday, December 29, 2009


Did you know there is a senatorial election in Massachusetts this upcoming January 19th? Ted Kennedy's seat is open and that day will determine who fills it. Yet, it appears that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) is somewhat disinterested in throwing its weight behind Republican candidate Scott Brown.

The Boston Herald REPORTS:
GOP U.S. Senate candidate Scott Brown has been all but abandoned by the same national Republican committees that pumped hundreds of thousands in campaign cash to former governors Mitt Romney and William Weld during their long-shot bids for U.S. Senate.

The snub has outraged local Republicans who say national conservatives should be jumping at the chance to nab the first open Senate seat in decades despite Brown’s tough odds in the Jan. 19 special election.

“They need to give Scott a level playing field,” said former state GOP chairman Peter Torkildsen. “It’s one of those rare opportunities that a Republican has a good shot in Massachusetts.”
What I find more than a little disturbing about this is that the NRSC has demonstrated a propensity for targeting moderates with its assistance, to a fault. Case in point is in Florida. NRSC chairman John Cornyn threw his group's support behind Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in Florida back in MAY. Yet, since then, Rubio has pulled ahead of Crist slightly.

Days before Arlen Specter defected to the Democrats, the NRSC came out IN SUPPORT of him instead of Pat Toomey, who is a true conservative.

What on earth is wrong with Cornyn's NRSC? They should be all over this?! Obama is tanking and conservatism is on the rise. The GOP will face a severe backlash even if this race is close with Brown losing while the NRSC stood on the sidelines. Dede Scozzafava in NY 23 is the prime example.

Contact the NRSC and let them know how you feel.

h/t to HA


DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is not the problem but she certainly isn't the solution either. Her reaction(s) to the near tragedy on Christmas day was that "the system worked". After the political backlash that revealed that statement as being completely idiotic, Napolitano shifted gears.

Robert Spencer writes about the overall strategy (or lack thereof) when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorism.
As for airline security procedures, Abdulmutallab was able to get on the airplane without a passport, and with ingredients for an explosive that would have destroyed the plane and killed everyone in it. TSA officials are busy tightening security procedures with new Abdulmutallab-inspired rules such as forcing passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of the flight, but these new measures will do nothing to prevent another attack. One thing we have seen over the years since 9/11 is that airport security is always one step behind the jihadists: after jihadist Richard Reid attempted to set off a bomb hidden in his shoes, we all have to take off our shoes and send them through security scanners. After a group of jihadists tried to sneak onto planes explosive chemicals hidden in drink bottles, we can’t carry drinks through airport security terminals. Because Abdulmutallab attempted his jihad attack just before the plane landed, now we can’t get up during the last hour of the flight. The one thing that the TSA should have learned, but hasn’t, is that next time the jihadists will do something else, not just repeat what they did before. And even if every passenger were given a full body cavity search, they will find some way to get around it. But attempt a new approach based on sensible profiling? The TSA would rather fold up shop altogether.


The protests in Iran may soon become bigger than the ones that took place in June over what people perceived as fraudulent elections. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has come out and said that unless the military becomes fragmented, thereby opening the door for weapons winding up in the hands of the people, a government overthrow is highly unlikely.

The flip side to that involves the potential for the United States and / or Israel to help facilitate that fragmentation with some form of support - either financial or communications capabilities. The problem with that prospect is the man who occupies the White House.

Krauthammer slams Obama over this, saying "This is a moment in history and he's missing it."

h/t to HAP

Sunday, December 27, 2009


The unmitigated gall is palpable. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano actually said that the reason Northwest flight 253 didn't blow up was because "the system worked". Uh, not so much. The reason flight 253 didn't explode was that a Muslim's chemical concoction didn't blow up as advertised. Couple that with the heroic efforts of a Dutch passenger in preventing the dirtbag from doing any further damage and you have your answer.

The system didn't work. Its blatant failures were overcome by the common man and perhaps the Grace of God. The arrogance of Napolitano in uttering those words just about takes the cake.

The White House, according to both Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins, has been stonewalling the Fort Hood shooting investigation. Now we learn that Hasan's Imam, al-Awlaki, may have had connections to the man who almost blew up Flight 253. If that turns out to be true and the passenger actually did succeed in vaporizing a commercial jetliner, perhaps not stonewalling Leiberman and Collins would have prevented it.

But alas, practically everything this administration says and does is backward.

Click HERE to see video.



Sure looks and sounds like it. The only thing missing was the hiccups. Nonetheless, slurred speech is beyond obvious. Is he drunk on taxpayer dollars? In the past, I've used the analogy of politicians being like alcoholics who can't get off the sauce and continue digging. However, I had no idea I could have used it as a literal argument.

All week long, we were hearing about how all of these whack jobs were working round the clock and right up until the Christmas break. If they're allowed to get drunk on other people's money while conducting the people's business and giving the people the business, why exactly should we be ok with that?

Drunk on the job.

h/t to NR

Saturday, December 26, 2009


The Democrats, including Obama himself, have been touting this health care bill as one that will create $130 Billion in savings through Medicare cuts and higher taxes. The problem is that the CBO has shown that this does not account for the IOU's that will be sent from the Treasury to the Medicare Trust fund. According the CBO report itself, in order for the claim that a budget surplus would be realized, the money must be counted twice.

Here is the relevant portion of the two-page MEMO, released by the CBO on December 23rd, with the even more relevant excerpts bolded.
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.
Now for the Video. Republican senators Jeff Sessions (AL), John Kyl (AZ), and Judd Gregg (NH) were visibly disturbed by the blatant attempt by the Democrats to lie in order to get this monstrosity passed, with Sessions actually making the accusation that if this was corporate America, someone would be going to Jail. The video is a little lengthy but very much worth watching.

Unfortunately, the CBO memo didn't come out until Wednesday, the 23rd. Thanks to Nebraska senator Ben Nelson's sellout, the vote to end cloture took place two days earlier at 1am so this CBO report was basically rendered inconsequential in terms of the Senate version of the bill passing.

Phillip Klein has been writing about this as well. In reference to the Democrats continuing to claim budget savings, Klein ended one ARTICLE this way:
Similar comments have been echoed by Democrats during the several weeks that the Senate has been debating health care -- it would have been nice to have the CBO memo back when it could have actually made a difference.
For some reason, I can't help wondering if that one-on-one meeting between Obama and CBO Director Doug Elmendorf back in July had anything to do with the delay between the Democrats getting 60 votes and the CBO reporting the truth. Elmendorf gets to go on record as having reported the truth about the costs and the bill still gets rammed through.

Remember THIS? When you watch this video, fast forward to the three-minute mark to watch the part about Elmendorf and the CBO.



What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away. On Christmas Eve, it was widely believed that Nidal Malik Hasan's radical Imam cleric and spiritual guide was killed in an air strike in Yemen. That appears now to be incorrect. Then again, authorities reportedly have no access to the area because it's run by radicals, the same radicals whose story that al-Awlaki is alive is what we're reduced to believing.

I guess we can factually say he felt the heat of this attack.

LA TIMES reported the story.

h/t to JW


After Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down nearly 50 people on November 5th, there was a reticence on the part of newscasters to say his name even though it was very obvious who he was. One exchange in particular involved Shepard Smith of Fox News with Senator Kay Bailey Hutcihson. That exchange is at the bottom of this post.

Here we have a very similar phenomenon in the form of CNN anchor Ali Velshi telling Rep. Peter King (R-NY) that his network was not prepared to utter the name Abdul Mudallad, the man aboard a commercial airline flight from Amsterdam to Detroit who attempted to detonate an explosive and failed. Mudallad allegedly commenced his trip in Nigeria. As NewsBusters points out (link below), several other networks had already revealed Mudallad's name.

Click HERE for the exchange between Shepard Smith and Kay Bailey Hutchison on November 5th. Note Hutchison's reason for not wanting to divulge the name of Nidal Malik Hasan. She says she didn't know if his family had been notified.

NOTE TO KAY BAILEY - WHO CARES! Notifying the family before going public is for THE VICTIMS, not the murderer.

h/t to NB

Thursday, December 24, 2009


There's just something catchy about it. Just imagine that the world's most corrupt, wicked, nefarious, and deranged leaders decided to put their anger on a shelf and become an elf. Jib Jab, once again, saves you the trouble of having to imagine because they've put them all together for your viewing pleasure.

h/t to JW


This one sent in by Barrackaid #7. I don't have an original link / source but pictures do speak volumes and it's pretty easy to agree with the sentiment. In addition, the policy of gun-free zones on U.S. military bases are verifiable (see link below).

Israelis Baffled by News of Defenseless US Soldiers

Many Israelis want to know: why didn't the soldiers attacked by a U.S. Army major-turned-terrorist return fire?

When a Muslim goes, well, Muslim, in Israel he is typically shot to death by someone--say, a reserve soldier--within seconds of screaming "Allah Akbar."

In contrast with the Israeli experience, it took 10 minutes before a civilian police officer at Fort Hood was able to shoot and stop Muslim fanatic Nidal Malik Hasan.

How could that happen? How could so many people trained in the strategies and tactics of modern warfare be so defenseless?

The answer--and this may astonish many Americans--is that the victims were unarmed. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to carry guns for personal protection, even on a 340-acre base quartering more than 50,000 troops..

So it goes in brain-dead, liberal America.

Fort Hood is a "gun free" zone, thanks to regulations adopted in one of the very first acts signed into law by anti-gun President Bill Clinton in March, 1993. Click HERE for the file.

Contrary to President Obama's crocodile tears, his administration is bent on further disarming the U.S. military, and all Americans. Obama and his people will not rest until every American is a sitting duck..

Israeli teachers, from kindergarten on up, are also armed; so, a Virginia Tech-type slaughter is highly unlikely at an Israeli university.

Israelis, who have had to combat terrorism all their lives, are not afraid of guns. They are an armed people, ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their country.

Unlike indoctrinated Americans, paralyzed by fear and political correctness, Israelis understand that people, not guns, kill people.


Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Imam who knew and gave spiritual counsel to two or three of the 9/11 hijackers as well as to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan via email, is reportedly a dead victim of an air strike in Yemen.

Reuters REPORTS:
U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may also have died in the air strike which targeted a meeting of militants planning attacks on Yemeni and foreign oil and economic targets, he said.

If all the deaths are confirmed, the air strike would appear to have struck a severe blow against AQAP, seen as the most dangerous regional offshoot of Osama bin Laden's network.

"Anwar al-Awlaki is suspected to be dead," the official said of the cleric who was on the run in Yemen, where he was on the government's most-wanted list of terrorist suspects.

According to U.S. officials, the U.S. army psychiatrist who ran amok at the Fort Hood army base in Texas on November 5 had contacts with Awlaki.
If true, poetic justice and strong irony may have also been delivered. As MICHELLE MALKIN points out, ABC reported on an interview al-Awlaki gave that appeared on al-Jazeera one day earlier in which he claimed Hasan asked him about killing American soldiers in his very first email.
Awlaki claims that Hasan initiated the e-mail correspondence with a message on Dec. 17, 2008. "He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers," says Awlaki. "His question was is it legitimate [under Islamic law]."
One day later, al-Awlaki appears to have crossed the line that separates confidence from over-confidence.


The act of distracting with one hand while perpetrating something else with the other hand seems to come as naturally to Barack Obama as breathing. On December 16th, 2009, while the country is already distracted at Christmas time by an obscene healthcare debate, Barack Obama signed an amendment to Executive Order 12425 (EO), giving Interpol (International Police) who are on American soil, immunity from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Andy McCarthy at NRO explains, in part, why this is such a big deal:
Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.
Guess what else. Interpol operates inside the U.S. Justice Department, headed up by Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder's DOJ has been stonewalling quite a bit lately. Could we be seeing information that is harmful to this administration being sent to Interpol and the amendment to EO 12425 being invoked?

In the United States, the FBI works very closely with the DOJ. Similarly, in this one-world Utopia envisioned by these hardcore socialists, Interpol works closely with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Imagine a scenario in which the FBI was permitted to target an individual or entity in the United States, arrest individual(s), and not have to release information that could prove said person(s) innocence. Essentially, that framework appears to be getting built with Interpol and the ICC.

In any case, Interpol will be allowed to operate inside the United States while not being bound by the U.S. Constitution.

For much more detail on this, THREATS WATCH breaks it down quite well. Word of caution, Threats Watch makes the argument that it's conceivable the "assets" it wouldn't have to relinquish to information requests could include "human assets". I tend to come down on the side of Ed Morrissey at HOT AIR who claims that may be a bit of a reach. Nonetheless, considering all of the problems with transparency this administration has been having, it is more than just a little troubling to see Obama, with the stroke of his pen, give an international police force immunity from accountability for its actions as it operates inside Eric Holder's Justice Department.

Threats Watch speculates that the next step might be for Obama to allow members of the American military to be tried in the ICC after being arrested by Interpol. Think about this angle in terms of the CIA and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques debate this past year. Under such a framework, Holder would be off the hook in the arena of public debate. He would simply be able to defer to Interpol / ICC and say they're immune from releasing information - end of story.

Domestically, the U.S. Constitution is being shredded before our very eyes. Obama's actions indicate he views it as a huge nuisance. In any case, in light of this amendment being signed, think about Amendments III and IV to the U.S. Constitution and see if this EO begins to encroach upon them, if ever so slightly.
Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Could members of Interpol one day be considered "soldiers"? If Interpol barged into your home and took property to be used against someone in an ICC court, would they be immune from presenting it at trial?

That takes bullying tactics to an entirely new level. I wonder if ACORN or SEIU thugs might be offered jobs at Interpol soon. For some reason, this just came to mind.

Remember, we have watched this president seemingly have more disdain for a significant segment of his country's own population than he does for the world's most seediest of dictators.


h/t to FR

Wednesday, December 23, 2009


Heresy anyone? Iowa Senator Tom Harkin (D) actually has the unmitigated gall to compare Harry Reid to Job, Solomon, and Samson based on his ramming an unconstitutional health care bill through the senate while paying off Senators in order to do it. True humility wouldn't permit Harkin to make such claims nor would it allow an un-indicted criminal feign humility while secretly beaming with arrogance.


h/t to HAP


No one should really be shocked by this but in light of what ACORN has been caught enabling, it's still shocking. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) heading the Judiciary Committee should be shocking too. So should the fact that multiple ACORN offices across the United States were willing to help a pimp and a prostitute get housing assistance so they could open up a brothel that offered illegal alien children from El Salvador to its customers.

But alas, in addition to there being nothing wrong with that, the filmmakers who exposed it could be in violation of state laws and subject to prosecution.

According to POLITICO:
A Congressional Research Service report commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee says ACORN hasn’t violated any federal regulations the past five years.

The report, released by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers’s (D-Mich.) staff Tuesday evening, also reports that the undercover filmmakers that allegedly caught employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now breaking the law may have violated state law in their filming operation.
Conyers, whose district includes the northwest section of Detroit, would seemingly be better served by looking in the mirror. Detroit is an absolute disaster.


Jamie Glazov has put forth a very likely reason why leftists cannot come to grips with the fact that there are Jihadists on American soil who want to kill them. The most blatant example is the Fort Hood shooting, both in terms of the devastation left by Hasan as well as his past military record. There are still several mindless lefties who refuse to call it what it is.
As the United States prepares to try Nidal Malik Hasan for 13 counts of murder and 32 counts of attempted murder at Fort Hood last month, few question the suspect’s guilt, but many disagree about his motives. Yet the evidence is now conclusive: the Fort Hood massacre was an act of Islamic terror. Before his shooting spree, Hasan told colleagues that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell and that they should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats. Hasan traded 18 e-mails with Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida recruiter. On the morning of the massacre, he gave his neighbor a Koran as he was departing for the base, telling her that he was going to do “good work for God.” Wearing Pakistani garb, Hasan shouted “Allahu akbar” as he began firing at U.S. troops.

Despite the plentiful evidence, however, leftists refuse to accept Hasan’s Islamic inspiration. We’ve heard the rationalizations: Hasan was a nut; the stresses of serving in the military drove him crazy; he experienced anti-Islamic discrimination; anyone is capable of “losing it” under such stressful conditions; and so on. These reflexive denials are a logical continuation of the Left’s long tradition of denying the evil of our totalitarian enemies—or, when forced to acknowledge them, blaming them on the United States.

Personally, I would add to Glazov's theory the notion of Stockholm Syndrome.



Kathleen wouldn't be able to hide from this one even if she walked around with her face in her sleeve all day. She was caught on tape in April of 2007 saying that she wanted to eventually get to single payer (gov't run healthcare) but advocated doing "everything we can" to close the gap.

Take note of how she explains exactly how the language in the Senate version of the health care bill will allow abortions to be taxpayer-funded. Nothing to worry about. Barbara Boxer helped to write this part.

It's all about "accounting"....



Strip away the fact that Obama speeches send thrills up his leg or the fact that he worked for Jimmy Carter. Heck, while you're at it, go ahead and overlook Matthews' outing himself on national television (insert joke here) that he's a "liberal". But this puts him in an entirely new class of classless individuals. To show esteem for Saul Alinsky, one almost has to either be an atheist or a satanist. After all, Alinsky dedicated his last book, "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer.

Here is what Alinsky wrote in the dedication of his book, "Rules for Radicals"....
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Uh, maybe everyone can stop wondering why the media has been giving Obama a pass for so long.

h/t to NB


There are some thick-headed Republican senators out there who just never seem to wise up. Texas senator John Cornyn voted for TARP despite his constituents overwhelmingly telling him not to. Those constituents were proven right. Back in May, as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Cornyn threw his support behind Florida Governor Charlie Crist for the 2010 SENATE RACE there despite conservative objections that it was too early and that Crist was too moderate.

Lo and behold, Marco Rubio is now neck and neck with Crist. Instead of Cornyn deferring to the conservative base of the Republican party after they proved him wrong again, he continues to double down, saying that conservatives need to be more realistic in their expectations in the 2010 elections.

Imagine how this race would look like now had the The National Republican Senatorial Committee, chaired by Cornyn, withheld support for Crist and let things play out. Erick Erickson at RED STATE also points out that the NRSC also scoffed at Pat Toomey's chances in Pennsylvania against Arlen Specter. Specter is now a reeling Democrat who looks very vulnerable.
So Cornyn and the NRSC jump into bed with Charlie Crist because of the poll numbers in Florida and now Crist is tied to or behind Marco Rubio. The NRSC also said Pat Toomey was not a viable alternative to Arlen Specter and even after Specter jumped to the Democrats, the NRSC worked valiantly to try to convince every other Republican in Pennsylvania to get in so they wouldn’t have to deal with Toomey.
Erickson goes on to explain the issue Cornyn and Republicans seeking to put up moderate candidates are facing:
Here is the problem for the NRSC and the Republican Establishment.

They are panicked.

The tea party movement outpolls the GOP.

The conservative challengers are performing as well as or better than the establishment picks.

The NRSC lost in Pennsylvania.
The NRSC is going to lose in Florida and California.
The NRSC is losing in Kentucky.
The NRSC may very well lose in Colorado and New Hampshire.
On a different but related note, everyone needs to remember what happened in 2004. Rick Santorum, along with Bush, threw his support behind Specter in the primaries, thereby dissing Toomey at the time. Specter won and Pennsylvania had two Republican senators. In 2006, Santorum lost his seat to Democrat Bob Casey in part, due to a lack of conservative turnout. In 2009, Specter became a Democrat.

End result? In late 2006, Pennsylvania had two Republican senators. In 2009, it had 2 Democrat senators by following the moderate Republican model.

No thanks. Cornyn needs to pipe down and get in line.



As Allegory and British Prime Mangler Gordon Brown attempted to go on stage in Copenhagen, they took a wrong turn at Albuquerque, with Gordon falling on the sword, shamelessly laughing and apologizing for the faux pas as Allegory was steaming inside and completely unable to laugh at himself (perhaps because so many other people laugh at him). He doesn't seem very comfortable in that skin of his. He has become so pathetically and blatantly exposed as a fraud in recent weeks, I found it rather obvious that he took this more personally than Brown, who actually strikes me as being too oblivious to feel shame.

h/t to IOWAHAWK for also finding this very salient relic from Spinal Tap.



Pro-life Democrat Representative from Michigan, Bart Stupak has been somewhat vocal about his opposition to the language in the Senate bill that permits taxpayer funded abortions. He's also leading a contingent of other Democrats in the House who are saying they won't vote in support of the current bill unless the abortion language is changed.

With the way Democrats have been dropping like flies when it comes to standing up on principle instead of having a price, I'm not holding my breath that Stupak will stick to his guns either but it's an interesting development nonetheless.

In an interview with CNSNews, Stupak is speaking forthrightly in saying that he is being pressured by the White House directly to stop talking about the bill until "sell" him on the language. I wonder if that means bought off like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.

Here is the actual quote:
“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language. Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”
Click HERE for the audio..

According to the CNSNews Report:
Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.

“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care."
As Landrieu and Nelson are appearing very uncomfortable thanks to an engaged public, hopefully Stupak and his gang will take note. Then again, this White House has a way of mounting pressure the likes of which we've not seen in past administrations.

Stupak needs to prepare to be Alinsky'd. But he also needs to study Alinsky's Rule #1:
Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
A rule tailor-made for bullying.

HERE is the entire CNSNews Report.

h/t to DRUDGE


This one is like having your hand caught in the cookie jar and saying you're not a thief. Instantly, you're labeled a liar in addition to a thief. That's what Democrat senator Mary Landrieu (LA) does here. Instead of owning up to the "Louisiana Purchase" - her vote on health care - for $300 Million and saying she did it for her state and that's who she's elected to represent, she goes into denial, almost visibly attempting to make herself feel better about selling out.

On C-SPAN, Landrieu actually has the call to say, and this is a quote, "I can't be bought". Whatever makes you feel better, Mary but you betrayed your country for a price. The moniker given to what she did has also got to sting because it is so appropriate and likely to stick for years to come as the fruits of her vote become clearer and clearer.


Tuesday, December 22, 2009


Ed Morissey over at Hot Air does the leg work on this one along with the Weekly Standard (link below). On page 1020 of Reid's health care bill is verbiage that Republican senator Jim DeMint seems to imply may be strongly unconstitutional. First, check out the verbiage.
From page 1020
SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.
DeMint seems to be pointing to this language as wording that will unconstitutionally prevent future any future congress from repealing this monstrosity.

Morrissey points to this section of the Constitution:
Article I, Section 5:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Be sure to watch this entire video of DeMint...

Anyone think this had anything to do with why the bill was crafted behind closed doors without any Republicans present?

Read all about it at HOT AIR


Too early to call this a trend but a 46% strong disapproval number for Obama, this health care monstrosity about to pass despite the will of the people, and now an Alabama Democrat turning Republican, it'd be a good start. POLTICO has the story:
POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.

According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith's district in northern Alabama.

Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.
Let's see how blue those blue dogs really are.

h/t to MM


We had Nidal Malik Hasan's attorney, John Galligan in studio L for the Lynn Woolley Show recently and his response to questions about how he could defend Hasan always came back to the Constitution (ok) and Galligan's desire for a fair trial (ok).

So why is he doing this?

According to the SF CHRONICLE:
An attorney for the man charged in the deadly shootings at Fort Hood says the Army has prohibited his client from praying in Arabic with his family.

Attorney John P. Galligan said police stopped a phone conversation between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and his brother on Friday because it was not in English. Galligan told the San Antonio Express-News that police at Brooke Army Medical Center refused to let Hasan pray in Arabic.
Considering how Hasan committed an act of war in full view of hundreds of people, I fail to see how denying him from speaking in arabic puts a fair trial in jeopardy. Innocent people wrongfully jailed who can't post bail are denied rights legally. The same should apply here.

h/t to WND


Not entirely sure what this means but for the far lefties to be the cause of this one, they'd have to move from the SA to SD overnight. That would be unlikely. I have long maintained that the Strongly Disapprove number is far more important than the Strongly Approve number.

46% Strongly Disapprove is by far a new high.

When you look at the Overall Approve / Disapprove numbers, the former is at 44%, which is not a new low. The latter is at 56% which IS a new high. Neither is the Strongly Approve number a new low.

My money is on a two-part shift happening. At face value it would seem that a contingent of those who approve of Obama's performance moved into the "disapprove" and another contingent migrated from "disapprove" to "strongly disapprove".


I must admit, the first time I watched this I was convinced it was something from the Onion or some other source of scornful satire directed at the Eco-wackos. But alas, it appears to be the real deal. These people have actually gathered together in a forest, called it a "cathedral", and wailed to the trees.

If the trees have even a modicum of awareness, they are laughing. However, if they don't (a conventional assumption), I'm sure they appreciated the extra CO2.

WOW.......No, I seriously mean, WOW!

If you still doubt this is real, here is Earth First's WEBSITE

Money quote....
"Bring me to this rock that has the most incredible life."

h/t to RS


I must admit, upon seeing that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd got $100 million in the latest version of the health care bill, I thought about this angle because there was no need for bribery to get his vote. However, he definitely could use some help getting re-elected. The $100 million is earmarked for a hospital in Dodd's state but is it possible that Federal taxpayer dollars could end up funding a portion of his re-election campaign?

Come on, in light of the political climate these days is that really a stretch? The reporter making the claim is NOT a conservative.

It's no secret Dodd is IN TROUBLE in 2010. This could be a small sampling of what we can expect in terms of election strategy all across the country in the tight races.

h/t to GP


John McCormack at the Weekly Standard Blog points out that squirrelly Illinois Senator Roland Burris vowed not to vote for the Reid health care bill unless it had a public option. The bill does not have a public option yet Burris still voted for it. Did something in the bill sufficiently alleviate Burris' concerns? Perhaps it was in the Manager's Amendment of the bill, which addresses something called - are you ready for this - the "Office of Minority Health". Sounds a little discriminatory, doesn't it?

Burris, according to WS, pointed to the MANAGER'S AMENDMENT when asked why he voted in support of a bill without a public option:
The provision he cites, found on pages 240 through 248 of the manager's amendment, requires that six different agencies each establish an “Office of Minority Health.” The agencies are the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.”
Potentially, the most disturbing part of this is that while the most recent ruling on whether ACORN can receive federal funds was that withholding funds is unconstitutional. That may still be overturned but the Manager's amendment appears to have insulated ACORN should they be ruled ineligible for those federal funds:
Earlier this year, Congress passed and the president signed into law a ban on federal funding for ACORN, but a judge ruled that that law was unconstitutional. If a higher court reverses that ruling, ACORN may be prohibited from receiving funds through the Office of Minority Health earmark. But according to the Senate legislative aide, ACORN would still "absolutely" qualify for federal funding through the provision in the underlying Reid bill because the anti-ACORN appropriations amendment would not apply to funds provided through the health care exchanges.
This would mean that a United States senator is in support of protecting an organization exposed as an enabler of, among other things, a child prostitution ring.

h/t to BG

Monday, December 21, 2009


Steven Crowder provides quite the history lesson, starting in 1961 when Detroit elected its first liberal mayor and never looked back. To a logical and rational eye, it should be very obvious what happened to De'Troit after nearly 50 years of leftwing leadership but alas, liberals also have short memories and attention spans. It's hard enough to get liberals to admit they're wrong after 5 minutes, let alone 50 years.

In fact, 50 years provides just enough room for the sufficient amount of revisionist history needed to elect.........another liberal.

h/t to H4A


If not THE most corrupt senator in the U.S. Senate, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (D) is the runner-up. How is he held accountable? Well, he's awarded $100 million of taxpayer money in the Senate version of the health care bill. Instead of doing time for his role in the Fannie & Freddie debacle, Chris Dodd gets tens of millions more of federal dollars for his state.

Congratulations, America. Welcome to the fruits of apathy.
WASHINGTON (AP) - A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night.
The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut.

The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. Scattered throughout are numerous items sought by individual lawmakers, many of them directing money explicitly to programs or projects in their home states.
HERE is the entire story.


From the same guys who crashed Allegory's book signing in Chicago a couple of weeks ago. The upside? The group, called 'We Are Change Chicago' identifies an extremely curious coincidence. On December 8th, 2008, one day before his arrest, Blago publicly threatened Bank of America that the state of Illinois would cease doing business with them any longer because of how they were mis-using federal bailout dollars. Did that have anything to do with the arrest?

Interesting find and worth looking into.

The downside? These guys at WACC seem to be a little too chummy with Blago who, whether they're right or not about the BOA connection, is no saint. I also found myself rolling my eyes as this crew then whipped out the Truther crusade, hoping to find a new advocate in Blago - as if he's going to be able to do anything about that.

Then, as a parting shot, the last guy solicits Blago's support for Climategate. Easy guys. Blago can only do so much.



The deals granted to both Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu smack of criminality, both in the U.S. Legal code and the Constitution. Unfortunately, running roughshod over the Constitution has become a new sport apparently. First off, the Constitution. There are two Articles that have been blatantly violated without consequence.

Article I, Section 9 (Limits of Congress), Part 6:
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Article IV, Section 2:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Keep in mind that taxpayers in 49 states will be subsidizing both Louisiana and Nebraska. LINK to U.S. Constitution.

Now, onto the U.S. legal code. BIG GOVERNMENT has more on this. It is beyond debate in my view that the law has been broken. The issue now becomes who in power is going to enforce it?

Bribery of Public Officials -


The American people will be getting something they have loudly said they don't want, disguised as a Christmas present. At 1am on Monday morning, the 21st, 60 Senators (58 Democrats, 1 Liberal Independent, and 1 Independent Socialist) successfully voted to cut off debate and send the latest version of Obamacare to the floor for a vote, which will almost certainly take place at 7pm on Christmas eve.

A Christmas eve vote? Why is that so important? It has the feel of an additional (and unnecessary) smack in the face to the American people. As bad as Harry Reid is, he's not from Chicago and these are Chicago-style politics. Notice how Reid has become the face that is being demonized by the American public while Obama remains detached and smiling?

Byron York at the Washington Examiner explains why Reid needed the 1am cloture vote to get that Christmas eve vote:
This is how it works. Reid introduced his amendment Saturday morning. (It's the one that has the Sen. Ben Nelson Medicaid buy-off and other curious features.) Senate rules say there has to be an intervening day between the introduction of the amendment and a vote on limiting debate on the amendment. That intervening day was Sunday. That meant the cloture vote could be held Monday, or any time thereafter. The rules also say that the vote has to be held at least one hour after that next day has begun. So the Senate's Monday business began at 12:01 a.m., and the Reid Amendment vote could be held at 1:01 a.m. (As it happened, Reid himself spoke last, and his remarks went over the mark by six minutes.)

After the middle-of-the-night vote, there will be a maximum of 30 hours debate on the amendment. Then there will be a 30-hour period for a Republican substitute bill, followed by a 30-hour period on the final bill. Reid's schedule calls for a final, final vote on the health care measure to take place at about 7 p.m. on Christmas Eve. Voila! The bill will be passed by Christmas. That couldn't be done unless the Reid Amendment cloture vote were held in the earliest hours of Monday morning, setting off the final chain of votes and waiting periods. "This is purely to satisfy a self-imposed, arbitrary deadline," says the GOP aide.
Read York's entire piece HERE.

Sunday, December 20, 2009


This is what you would call a virtual eco-wacko smackdown. Apparently filmed in Copenhagen, a scientist is asked about climategate in general and the University of East Anglia's CRU emails in particular. While she doesn't directly respond to that question, she finds herself cornered by another question, which focuses on revelations that CRU scientists discarded their raw data.

This scientist basically says that one is indefensible. The first step is admitting there's a problem and she has done that here.

h/t to JAWA


Thom Hartmann of Air America fame is not happy. Left and Right UNITE! Unbeknownst to Hartmann is that he is discovering the truth, albeit through the back door. Notice how he singles out Obama's mother as someone who would not receive care for the ovarian cancer that killed her under the current bill being voted on.

While doing so, he points to the fact that there's no public option in this bill. What he doesn't get is that Stanley Ann Dunham wouldn't have gotten taken care of WITH a public option. Anyway, Hartmann is mad. As far as I'm concerned, let him think he discovered this all on his own.

Whatever works.



This one is called "Violent Night". Islamic rage boy with Mahmoud I'm in a Jihad providing backup vocals support. Lyrics are perfect. Be sure to pay attention to Mahmoud's facial expressions as Rage Boy clears his pipes. Remember, Muslims take no Shiite. From beginning to end, this one delivers lines that keep on giving.

Mahmoud is off-key throughout though.

h/t to JAWA

Saturday, December 19, 2009


Again, the notion that politicians place getting / staying elected above all else is disproven. Nelson's state has made it quite clear that voting for this monstrosity will lead to his exit. That means he's placing something else above getting elected. What on earth could that be? Chicago style politics of course.

For those who are disappointed, did you really think you could pin your hopes on a Democrat?



Friday, December 18, 2009


Why is it that the voices of reason in power are few and have minimal power? I have long maintained that Czech president Vaclav Klaus, a man-made climate change denier, is one of the most courageous men out there. I often couple him with Roberto Micheletti, interim president of Honduras who took on the world (and Obama) and won and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who refuses to be intimidated by the DHS.

When it comes to the EU, Klaus is on an island but he is right.

h/t to NZ


It appears that this Hadley Center for Climate Change angle is beginning to get extended play, beyond the initial reports of cherry-picking data. That cherry-picking is looking more and more suspicious. As a result, East Anglia is likely to get even more attention in the coming days in conjunction with Hadley.

At issue is Hadley's data collection process. Hadley is relied upon heavily for the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). However, Russia's Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) is exposing Hadley in the same way that the release of the emails exposed East Anglia's CRU.

The Russian news agency, Ria Novosti, reports the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) revealed researchers with the Hadley Center in England "had probably tampered with Russian climate data." The Hadley Center is based at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia where thousands of e-mails were pirated from a server and published on the Internet in November. The e-mails implicate climate scientists in conspiracy to withhold and manipulate data to forward their environmentalist agenda.

The IEA says CRU researchers used data from only 25 percent of Russian meteorological stations, and those stations happened to be the ones with the warmest temperature readings. Temperatures reported by the remaining 75 percent showed no substantial warming during the last several decades. The press release reported, "The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic (man-made) global warming theory." The Russian institute claimed CRU scientists tended to choose records from stations providing sporadic readings rather than those supplying uninterrupted observations. Their preference also tended toward stations in metropolitan areas where the urban heat effect influences warmer temperatures.
In both cases - East Anglia's CRU and Hadley - there is a Russian angle. The emails from UEA's CRU were released via a Russian server and Hadley's processes are being exposed by a Russian institute.

It is ironic indeed that Obama, a socialist mentored as a child by a man, Frank Marshall Davis, who had great affinity for the Soviet Union, is finding Russia to be involved as a significant player in this scandal. Russian Television continues to follow this story.

Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive