Saturday, May 24, 2008

Proof of global warming! On Jupiter

Ed Morrissey reported Oh, you skeptics are going to rue the day you doubted global warming! Hot off of NASA’s website, we have undeniable proof of “large-scale global warming,” photographic evidence taken from space that shows the increased temperature generating new, violent storms.
When will the Jupiterians understand they must join Kyoto?
Deniers will have to eat some crow over this. Of course, they’ll first have to talk about the right planet... Well, gee …. what could be causing that global warming? Has Exxon-Mobil used its 8.3% profit margin to start refining oil on the solar system’s largest planet? Perhaps Jupiterians have bought too many SUVs over the last few years. Jupiter may also have an epidemic of bovine flatulence causing these storms.

Ed Driscoll blogged Except for a single very powerful radio emission aimed at Jupiter, the four-million year old black monolith has remained completely inert. Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery.

AJStrata blogged This is actually not the first report of ‘global warming’ on other planets, we had linked to another story last year as well


Bird Brain

I can understand it from a bird brain, but humans should be more intelligent.

Hat tip to Allahpundit

lorien1973 commented that’s the smartest obama supporter I’ve seen yet.

JetBoy commented Dear gawd…animal abuse. But then, aren’t all Obama supporters just parrots anyway?

pistolero commented He’s gotta be on the ’short list’.

amerpundit commented About the average IQ of an Obama supporter. And they all give the same, mindless repetitive phrase.

jgapinoy commented I hope his cage is lined with the NYT.


Sometimes people say what they are thinking

A politician has to be careful. Sometimes they say what they are thinking, without intending to do so. reported Clinton was asked during a meeting with the editorial board of the Argus Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D., about continuing to run despite long odds of winning the nomination. She said that while the media and Obama's campaign have urged her to withdraw, "historically, that makes no sense." "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?"
True, but that election did not start the previous year.
she continued. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Oops. What she meant to to say was something might happen to Obama before then, because people were starting to see what an empty suit he is. But the "Vince Foster" alternative was supposed to be a very closely held alternative.
Her advisers quickly explained that Clinton merely intended to note that this was not the first primary campaign to stretch into the summer, not to suggest that Obama might be assassinated.
Even if she would like to see it happen.
Clinton later apologized to the Kennedy family while speaking to reporters, saying she did not mean to offend anyone.
I don't think the statment was offensive. A threat, but not an offense.
But in a campaign where Obama's safety has been a subtext and in which critics have blamed Clinton for exacerbating racial tensions, her words added a new element of tension to the Democratic contest. Obama began receiving Secret Service protection about 18 months before the general election because homeland security officials were concerned about potential threats against him.
So they recognize that it is possible.
Obama campaign officials quickly called the comments out of bounds.
Since when does one of the players in a game declare something in or out of bounds That is up to the voters to determine.


Friday, May 23, 2008

Risk of Obama Loss

Talking Points Memo reported In a move that could foreshadow a public push from the Hillary forces to get Barack Obama to invite her on the ticket, Hillary's top campaign fundraising official said in an interview that there's a "risk" that Hillary's political and financial supporters won't get behind Obama in time for him to win in November if she's passed over for the veep slot.
She has the delegates to force her selection, if she wants it. What she should do is announce that if the Super Delegates select her for President, she will make Obama her VP.
The fundraiser, businessman Hassan Nemazee,
What country is he from?
is Hillary's leading finance chair and one of the most influential money men in the party. He's the first prominent Hillary campaign official to raise the possiblity of an Obama loss should she not be invited on the ticket, and his comments suggests that this argument could emerge as central to any Clinton camp push to make her veep.


John Hawkins turns on McCain

Right Wing News reported I've never been a fan of John McCain. Not only is he not a conservative, he may have done more damage to the conservative movement than any other Republican over the last few years. Look back at the Gang-of-14, global warming, McCain-Feingold, coddling terrorists at Gitmo, illegal immigration -- on and on and on, and you'll remember John McCain working feverishly with liberals to defeat conservatives.

I agree, but he is still a lot better than Obama, Clinton, Obama/Clinton, or Clinton/Obama.


Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries

Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize U.S. oil industries. She can't think of the word "nationalize" but that is what she means. The US Government has done such a bad job with everything else they do, that I would hate to think of them trying to run the Oil Industry.


The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead

The Field reported The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

I can't imagine why Hillary wants to be his VP, unless Vince Foster has something to do with it, and I can certainly understand why Obama does not want the two Clintons there, but she has almost as many pledged delegates as he does. Does he really think the Super Delegates that owe Clinton but are supporting him would deny her the nomination for VP?


Thursday, May 22, 2008

Is the senate a peerage?

NY Daily News reported Ted Kennedy has made clear to confidants that when his time is up, he wants his Senate seat to stay in the family - with his wife, Vicki.
In Great Britain their House of Lords many of their members continue to sit in the Upper House by virtue of hereditary peerages, but even that is changing. Since when does Ted Kennedy think he can pass on his senate seat in his will. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution provides if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. And then the selection is made by the people of Massachusetts. Originally the constitution provided , but 17th amendment provided that senators would be directly elected by the people.
Multiple sources in Massachusetts with close ties to the liberal lion say his wife of 16 years has long been his choice to continue carrying the family flame in the Senate. Kennedy won the seat in 1962; his brother John held it from 1953 to 1960.


Polygamists' children reported The state of Texas should not have removed the more than 460 children it took from a polygamist sect's ranch, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
I understand they were thinking of getting another warrent to do another raid. I wonder if this will have any effect on a second raid.
In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had appealed the removals, as well as a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody. "The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the three-judge panel said. The state's Department of Family and Protective Services "did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children
married or single
who had not reached puberty," the judges ruled.


What Does Hillary Want?

Karen Tumulty asks in TIME What Does Hillary Want?.
She wants to be President. The only way to sway her is to offer her a position with more ower than the President. Because she wants power.
... The latest round of calls was a tacit admission that while the battles aren't over, the war has been lost. It also raises the question, What will Clinton's terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton's view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama's running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill "is pushing real hard for this to happen," says a friend.
And if she really wants it, with all of the delegates she has, Bill can turn enough of the Super Delegaes that owe him a favor, but embraced Obama, to vote for her with the VP nomination hits the floor.
Hillary is more opaque about what she might want,
Because she is still pushing for the top slot.
divulging little even to those who see and talk to her every day. "It's as plain as the nose on your face that this whole thing has shifted to a different mode," says a top Clinton strategist. "But I don't know what she wants. I don't know what she's thinking."
She wants power, and for everyone that go in her way to suffer.
Even if Clinton is not on the ticket, the list of things she might want could range from a tangible move like help in paying off some of her campaign debt
That is just chump change. If she is President Bill can replace that in speaking fees in just a few months.
to a symbolic gesture of homage at the Democratic National Convention.
What gesture of homage can they offer that does not involve boiling Obama in oil or some other painful death.
Obama's team knows that Clinton and her crew above all are likely to want respect to be paid for their efforts; beyond that, it is unclear what the tab will be.... Some of Clinton's own strategists are doubtful that Obama will offer to make her his running mate — in no small part because that would mean bringing Bill aboard.
Her presence on the ticket would also undercut Obama's core message of change and his promise of a new brand of politics. However, advisers say that in the interest of unifying the party, there may well be a good argument for tapping one of the Clintons' high-profile supporters, such as Indiana Senator Evan Bayh or Ohio governor Ted Strickland.
Do you think the Clintons care for any of their supporters?
... One measure of Obama's desire for peace will be whether he ignores objections from some of his most stalwart backers and helps Clinton pay off her $20 million-plus campaign debt, either by headlining events on her behalf or by appealing to his donors to help her. There is an urgency to this task: she has only until late August to raise the cash from donors to repay herself more than $11 million she has personally loaned her campaign.

Perhaps the knottiest question in the end will be this: If the vice presidency is not in Clinton's future, what role will she be permitted to play at the convention? She has earned by effort alone a chance to speak there. Several party officials believe she is likely to insist that her name be placed in nomination on the first ballot,
She is certainly entitled to that. And she will be twisting super delegate arms to get them to vote for her.
opening up all the divisions once again. Whether and how Clinton and Obama can work their way through the terms of surrender will tell voters a lot about both of them. And it could help determine whether a Democrat is elected in November.


Very Funny

The Onion has a veryfunny parody in which Obama, Clinton, and McCain Join Forces To Form Nightmare Ticket The candidates said they had not yet decided who would fill the offices of president, vice president, and a new post the nominees are calling "the middle president." They did, however, confirm that each would choose his or her own full cabinet, would be able to veto any bills the others sign into law, and would reserve the right to cast the tie-breaking, tie-making, and tie-rebreaking votes in the Senate.



Los Angeles Times reported California Rep. Laura Richardson today denied a published report that her $535,000 Sacramento home had slipped into foreclosure, saying she had renegotiated her loan to keep the home.
That is what they all should do with the sub prime loans
The house "... is not in foreclosure and has NOT been seized by the bank," Richardson, a Democrat from Long Beach, said in a statement.
She did not say it never was seized, or was not about to be siezed.
"I have worked with my lender to complete a loan modification and have renegotiated the terms of the agreement -- with no special provisions." (Richardson's entire statement is at the bottom of this article). Earlier, Capitol Weekly reported that Richardson walked away from the mortgage on her $535,000 Sacramento home, letting the house slip into foreclosure and disrepair less than two years after she bought it with no money down.
A mortgage company allowing a no money down loan is stupid.

"While being elevated to Congress in a 2007 special election, Richardson apparently stopped making payments on her new Sacramento home, and eventually walked away from it, leaving nearly $600,000 in unpaid loans and fees," the publication reported.
Apparently being a black Democratic congresswoman she felt the government would take care of the problem for her.
Richardson declined to comment for the Capitol Weekly story. Her office issued a written statement Wednesday afternoon.

Capitol Weekly, citing tax records at the Sacramento County assessor's office, reports "... in January 2007, Richardson took out a mortgage for the entire sale price of the house -- $535,000. The mortgage amount was equal to the sale price of the home, meaning she was able to buy the house without a down payment, even though the housing market was beginning to turn. A March 19, 2008 notice of trustee's sale indicates that the unpaid balance of Richardson's loan, which is held by Washington Mutual, is more than $578,000 –- $40,000 more than the original mortgage."
It sounds like she went a long time without even making payments on her no money down loan. Gee, no money down, and don't even have to make payments.
In addition to 100% financing on the home itself, the report quotes the woman who sold the house to Richardson as saying she also gave Richardson $15,000 toward closing costs.

WLS blogged prior to being elected to Congress, Richardson was a newly elected member of the California Assembly, having won her seat in Nov. 2006 representing Long Beach. This meant she had to spend a signficant amount of time in Sacramento tending to the business of the legislature. Most state legislators in California maintain their residences in their home districts, and rent/share apartments or homes in Sacramento which they pay for with a per diem housing allowance provided to them in their office budgets. They can spend this allowance on hotel rooms or apartments. Did I mention that the housing allowance is tax free for members who live more than 50 miles from Sacramento? So why did Richardson, two months after being elected, buy a $500,000+ house in Sacramento instead?.... Why did she stop paying her mortgage on the Sacramento house? According to Capitol Weekly:
Richardson declared her candidacy for the seat, and soon found herself locked in a hotly contested, and very expensive race for Congress against state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach. While her campaign heated up, Richardson’s house slipped into default. Richardson fell behind on her mortgage payments as she loaned her Congressional campaign $60,000 – money that has begun to be paid back to Richardson personally from her campaign account, according to records from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Rather than continue paying on the loan as the house lost value in the declining housing market of Sacramento, she loaned personal funds to her campaign, and simply walked away from the mortgage. She still has a four bedroom house in Long Beach.


Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Wouldn't it be wonderful?

A free press is wonderful. Even more wonderful would be a free press that told the truth, at least some of them, some of the time. For eight years the press supported the Clintons, covering up many of the things they did, frustrating Conservatives. Now the press has a new favorite, Obama, and I wonder what the Clintons are thinking. Knowing them, I bet tey are plotting to get even for the press turning on them. In the New York Times Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny reported Obama Declares Bid Is ‘Within Reach’, and Alessandra Stanley crosses her fingers and hopes Clinton Fades Even in a Victory. But Patrick Healy reported Clinton Sees Many Reasons to Stay In. In The Atlantic Marc Ambinder wonders Why Are Superdelegates Waiting? and observes 8 In 10 Clinton Voters in KY Dissatisfied With Obama As The Nominee

In the Washington Post Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta reported Clinton Wins Her Faithful in Ky., But Obama Gains Whites in Ore... capitalizing on that state's more liberal electorate and in The Fix Chris Cillizza wonders Problems for the Obama Juggernaut? CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider sums it up with Democratic division continues to run deep. John Cole whines Lisa Caputo, one of the Clinton hacks on MSNBC tonight, just claimed (fraudulently) that Hillary had the popular vote but was behind in the delegate math, and that this felt like “Al Gore in 2000 when it had to go to the Supreme Court.”

Matthews, apparently still high from the hair dye he used last week to turn his hair tomato red, did not correct her, as Clinton is only ahead in the popular vote if you include the vote tallies from the non-elections in Michigan and Florida and do not count the vote in caucus states.

Dems may be cleaning out their shorts once they hear Clinton may take delegate fight to convention

They all want it to be over, and they foolishly have planted their hopes that they can protect the empty suit Obama in November, and they would love to really destroy Clinton, but they fear what might happen if the power hungry Clintons should be able to prevail. Wouldn't a free press that told the truth be wonderful.


Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Obama's plan to disarm America

Maggie's Farm blogged Either Obama lives in the Land of Pretty Ponies and Lovely Rainbows (or whatever that expression is) or he is indeed hostile to American interests.

Or both.
Yesterday he essentially proposed unilaterally disarming the American economy with his energy ideas.
Not just unilaterally disarm us, destroy our economy.
On the clip below, he proposes unilateral military disarmament - something which no foe has ever been able to do to us.
These ideas may appeal to the pacifists in the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, but we need to make sure everyone knows what he proposes, and make him defend those ideas in November.
  • Cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. What about proven systems that can protect us and our friends from a nut case like Iran
  • Not weaponize space. What is to prevent our enemies from getting advantage over us?
  • Slow our development of future combat systems. Might as well let our enemies get ahead of us.
  • Put pacifists on a board over the quadrennial review board.
  • Not develop new nuclear weapons. Let the current ones get old and unstable.
  • Global ban on the production of fissile material. Let only our enemies develop it, and keep us from even developing peaceful nuclear plants which is the only way to reduce the aledged global warming.
These are not the ideas of a serious man: they sound more like the ideas of a Bennington College professor. The guy's disconnection from the realities of the world is sounding more and more dangerous to me.


Monday, May 19, 2008

Michelle Obama had a lot of praise for Clinton -- as first lady.

ABC News reported Michelle Obama had a lot of praise for Clinton -- as first lady. "I think the world of Hillary Clinton. Particularly, as a woman, having watched her go through a lot of what I might be going through, and doing it with a level of grace,
She must be talking about a different Hillary.
and raising a phenomenal daughter, which I have two girls," Michelle Obama said. "And I know how hard just in the little bit of exposure I've had to this what she's had to deal with, and what she's accomplished." "So that being said, you know, there is no way that I would say absolutely no to one of the most successful and powerful and groundbreaking women on this planet. What I have said is that I think one of the things that the nominee has earned is the right to pick the vice president that they think will suit them.
The nomiinee is usually given tat right, but the VP is nominated by te convention, but Hillar has enough delegates, and I am sure the Super Delegates that supported Obama would not deny her the VP slot if she wants it. I cannot imagine why she would want it. She can do more to sandbag Barack from the Senate.
.. I think this should be Barack's say, through and through."


Lay Off My Wife

ABC News reported Sen. Barack Obama ripped into a Republican ad today that targets comments made by his wife, Michelle, and called the GOP tactic "low class" and "detestable."
Was it more detestable than the things she has been saying?
The Illinois senator told "Good Morning America" that he expects hardball tactics from the Republicans if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.
Good. Then it won't come as a surprise.
"But I also think these folks should lay off my wife,"
Do we have to stop talking about Bill Clinton too? And will Dems stop pushing Cindy McCain to release her tax returns? Maybe Obama should send Michelle to a secure, undisclosed location without video cameras.
he told "GMA" as his wife chuckled beside him.


Obama wants to talk

He says Iran can't hurt us. They have committed to eradicate Israel. And the whole purpose of the missile shield Bush has been building in Eastern Europe is to intercept Iranian missiles targeted at Israel or Europe, and they may well develop rockets that can reach us. And they certainly sponsor terrorist organizations, and one of them could bring a nuke in through our porous southern border.

Was it presidential visits with the Soviet Union that brought down the Berlin Wall? Or was it because Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union with the military buildup.

He talks about Nixon talking to the Chinese. Was it because we feared them, or because we wanted to drive a wedge between them and the Soviet Union.

He thinks he can gain something from talking to Ahmadinejad. All he would do is strengthen Ahmadinejad, whose people don't like him.

Ed Morrissey blogged Obama suggests that Iran isn’t a real threat because they only spend “1/100th” of what we spend on defense. Not only does that make it sound like the US is a much greater threat to world peace, but it ignores the entire issue of asymmetrical warfare. How much does al-Qaeda spend on its attacks? A lot less than Iran, I’d suspect. Does that make AQ a much lower threat? If so, shouldn’t we be bombing Iran in the next five minutes or so?

Ace blogged Obama Claims Iran Not a "Serious Threat" to the US ... thereby proving Obama is a serious threat to the US.

Karl blogged Barack Obama’s “tiny countries” make him feel warm

Pamela Geller blogged What is so frightening about this is, Obamacide is telling the American people what they want to hear, what they would like to believe to be true. Anyone that has been paying attention to the actions and the words of the axis of evil, know we are up against a dangerous and serious enemy.

Macranger blogged Oh, I can’t wait until we see McCain vs. Obama, face to face later in the campaign. If this is any indication Obama might need to get his wife to go on the stump to protect him.


Sunday, May 18, 2008

Negotiating isn't appeasement

J. Peter Scoblic wrote in Los Angeles Times In a speech to the Israeli parliament Thursday, President Bush took a swipe at Barack Obama for his willingness to negotiate with evil regimes.
He never mentioned Obama's name. Maybe Obama is feeling fuilty, He just as well could have been thinking of Jimmy Carter who recently met with terrorists, or Nancy Pelosi who recently met with Syria.
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement,
But if those negotiations result in your giving something, and not getting something other than a promise which will not be kept, like when Chamberlain signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, who then took the rest.
and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions.
Including talking to someone developing nuclear weapons who claims the Holocaust never happened, but promising to make it happen as he destroys Israel?
It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.