Abu Wabu

Via KSLA News:

In giving the Republican response to President Obama's speech Tuesday night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal pointed out fundamental differences in how Republicans and democrats see the economy.

Wednesday morning on the CBS Early Show, Vice President Joe Biden asked, "But what I don't understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do? In Louisiana, there's 400 people a day losing their jobs. What's he doing?"

But that claim is wrong if you look at the numbers from the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

"In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release, that added employment over the month," said Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

"The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment," Granier said of the most recent figures.

Those numbers are available on Louisiana's employment website, laworks.net.

Also available on the site are the state's latest unemployment statistics, statistics that appear to directly contradict what the vice president said Wednesday morning. The latest statistics show from the week ending January 17th, there were 4,527 claims for unemployment insurance in Louisiana. For the next week, that number dropped to 4,179. Economists credit a diverse economy for Louisiana's resilience to unemployment.

It's unclear where the vice president got his unemployment figures from.

Hint: rhymes with "hizass".

Clever Subhead: "Ich bin fast so dumm, wie Sie sind."

From tonight's show:

And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

How stoooopid can Chimpy McACORN get?

And when did Germany say it was walking away from the car industry?

The Market responds to Zeus' latest bit of showbiz. Hint: look down. Look waaaay down.

Barack's Magical Mystery Tour.

Helen Thomas racist? Not that old, err, Anne Coulter target! For sooth! Besides, she's one of Them; she has a get-out-of-liberalbigothypocrisy-free card.

Telepathy Journalism at AP.

The usual from MSLSD.

Stimulus for Hamas. Coming to a Gaza near you: missiles into Israel.

A romance novel for idiots.

Japan cools on global warming.

Thank God we dodged that idiot Palin as VP, huh?

Dilbert nails it.

Dow Back To Idiot-Era Levels
Man. Remember when that stooopid Bush used 9/11 as cover for the neo-cons' fascist economic agenda and then drove the markets even further into the tank with white-knuckled indecision and transparent "Office-of-the-President-Elect"-style bullshit cynically served up as nuanced thoughtfulness?

Me neither.

Me neither.

Me neither.

Me neither.

Me neither.

Holy crap, are you kidding me?

Clever Subhead: Messiah Renames Canadian Capital

"It's a great pleasure to be here in Iowa err - Ottawa."

How stoooopid can Chimpy McACORN get?

Hey: just following a well-established formula here, okay? I didn't write these rules. Can't remember who did; my memory is unclear after so many years.

Anyway, We're All One Now. 52/48.

Reports the WaPo:

Even Bill Moyers, a White House aide now best known as a liberal television commentator, is described in the records as seeking information on the sexual preferences of White House staff members. Moyers said by e-mail yesterday that his memory is unclear after so many years but that he may have been simply looking for details of allegations first brought to the president by Hoover.

Comments Peter Wehner:

Moyers is among the most sanctimonious individuals on television (quite a feat, given the competition). He presents himself as a champion of good government, an intrepid voice for integrity and honesty, ever on the lookout for people who would degrade our public discourse or act in a dishonorable manner. That’s why this revelation — Moyers seeking information on the sexual preferences of White House staff members — is particularly notable. And I suspect his excuse, that his “memory is unclear after so many years,” probably wouldn’t persuade Moyers himself, if the person in question were, say, a conservative.

To be fair, I'm sure there's an explanation or two. Don't miss the two.

Here, in the interest of reminding everyone of the meaning of the United States' Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, is the full text of Rush Limbaugh's editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free
As a former law professor, surely you understand the Bill of Rights.

By RUSH LIMBAUGH

Dear President Obama:
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.

After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."

Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.

Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.

The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.

We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?

I've been thinking about this for a while now since I got the business from my family for not censoring my own writing to reflect their values rather than mine. You know how that goes...first it's a suggestion, then it's a hypocritical guilt thing, and when they can't control you with guilt and hypocrisy, they hang up in a self-demeaning huff and then commiserate over the phone with others about how angry you are.

I don't know how I know that, but I do.

Meanwhile, you carry on typing and listening to the radio.

In the wake of the story about the Buffalo guy who removed his wife's head for some reason or another having, funnily enough, something to do with his honor hardy har, I present these thoughts from a member of the Muslim community on the valuable contribution made by Arab women to society. Or not:

Women are incomplete in our society. They will remain incomplete and will always be considered inferior. Their participation in literary clubs, journalism training courses, conferences and seminars would lead to them mixing with men.

This would open the door for seduction, a source of corruption. Women would then become shameless and coveted by men.

Dare I utter the name of the organ of record?

Now: if I criticize the above as I criticized in a past post the wildly barbaric murders of American contractors at the bridge to Fallujah by a group of angry Arabs, only to have an obviously legitimate defining characterization separated out by a manipulative weasel who then frames it to someone else as proof that I hate all Arabs rather than that I disapprove of murderous misogyny, and then am admonished by that manipulated someone else for being such a horrible, vindictive racist, would that even remotely have the slightest thing to do with the point I am making?

Then why would I care?

Instapundit:

If something like this had happened with Bush, it would have been proof that fascism had descended upon America.

And it has.

Rick Santelli, folks: heeee rips Obama's stupid housing bailout plan, frightening the CNBC squirrels.

And Two Answered Questions.
1. If the Democratic Congress has forced lenders through legislation to make home loans to fraudulent borrowers, isn't it the Democrats and the fraudulent borrowers rather than the lenders who are "predatory"?

2. Since plummeting real estate values caused by predatory borrowing are putting responsible homeowners "under water", why is Obama bailing out predatory borrowers?

3. If Obama is going to subsidize your neighbor the predatory borrower, why wouldn't you default on your own mortgage so as to also get subsidized?

4. Doesn't subsidizing foreclosed homes put a floor on their prices, further distorting a housing market already badly distorted by predatory Democratic legislators and fraudulent borrowers?

5. How long before the housing market simply collapses under the weight of Obama's monumental stupidity?

Bonus Questions:
1. How many times did the Great Savior, the Courageous Leader, the Bringer of Unicorns, the Stopper of the Waters' Rise, use the word "crisis" in his speech yesterday announcing the Great Fraudulent Borrowers' Bailout?
Answer: 24

2. How many times did He use the word "leadership"?
Answer: 0

Barney Frank The Banking Queen
In onnuh of duh $75 biwion Obawma baiwout of iwesponsubul bowowuhs who took woans they couldn't affowd so dat wesponsible pepow could be fowced to pay for dem, hewe's Bawney Fwank singing his hit toon (duh one futuwe genewations wiw pway whenever dey want to wecall da mess fowhich Fwank and his fewow Democwats awe wesponsible):



Youw wehwcum.

"Didn't want to. Felt I... owed it to them."
~Judge Elihu Smails

Big Hollywood's Mr. Wrestling IV writes about dealing with friends and co-workers stricken with the latest idiocy-induced psychosis:

Another friend slowly transformed in front of my eyes during the last election season from a trusted friend, with whom I had had many agreeable discussions over the past eight years about issues like the threat of Islamic terrorism, excessive taxation, and the dangerous Bush Derangement Syndrome afflicting so many of our colleagues, into an unrecognizable Sarah Palin-hating Obamatron, unwilling to listen to any criticism of The One, and parroting mainstream media talking points that only months before we had both ridiculed.

The first red flag appeared to me when he spoke with contempt about Sarah Palin — which I will admit, I simply cannot bear. Sarah Palin reminds me of my mother, who came from nothing and earned everything she has. If you disagree with Palin’s policies or opinions substantively, I can handle that. But call her stupid, and I see red. It’s like saying “Yo Momma” to me. Mrs. Palin is exactly the kind of citizen politician our forefathers envisioned. She is a decent, normal, beautiful American woman from a small town who worked her way through college without the benefits of wealth, pedigree, or (ahem) Affirmative Action, who then climbed the political ladder, being rewarded by voters for her job performance, and became Governor of her state.

Sarah Palin has been a mother (of 5), a small business owner, a mayor, a governor, and the point guard on her high school state championship basketball team. That means she has run a family, a business, a town, a state, and an OFFENSE, for God’s sake. And she was running with McCain against Obama and Biden, three Senatorial blowhards, each of whom had only ever run one thing: his mouth.

The last straw was when he sent me one of those chain emails which listed all of Obama’s “accomplishments,” such as they were, and then concluded that the only possible reason anyone could not support Obama was racism. I told him that since I did not agree with Obama on any issue he could name, and judging by the conversations we’d had over the years that he didn’t either, then if either of us was voting based on race, it had to be him and not me.

Then after some fruitless back and forth, I realized he was gone. The friend I had known didn’t really exist anymore. He was ready to reward the party that had called our President a liar, a loser, and a terrorist, and called our brave soldiers killers, with control of every branch of government because he had succumbed to the Hope and Change cult. So I put him out of his (and my) misery.

I took him out behind my address book and whacked him.

I've done this myself. It's part of my personal philosophy and it works like a charm. It makes room in life for the positive, and I'll do it again whenever I have to and to anyone who deserves it, because Mom was right: life is "too fucking short".

Some might say it's a shame to lose friends and loved ones over politics, the "some" being those who have been whacked. But they have two crucial things in common: they brought it on themselves, and they deserved it.

A consensus began forming last year that the Messiah suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). I accept the caveats that only a clinical analysis can prove it, but I also accept Dr. Sam Vaknin's assertion that "in the absence of access to Barack Obama, one has to rely on his overt performance and on testimonies by his closest, nearest and dearest".

American Thinker's Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. examined the subject in Obama, Oprah, and the Guru: Malignant Narcissism, as did Paul Shlichta in The Enigma of Obama.

These analyses were written in the wake of the Messiah's Sermon From The Greek Columns but well before He began addressing the universe from behind a sign proclaiming the non-existent "Office of the President-Elect".

And now making every bill-signing look like the Second Coming.

One has to be not only ignorant of history but given over completely to wishful thinking to buy the Messiah's pathetic pretension that he is the reincarnation of Abraham Lincoln; he is in fact the very antithesis of America's greatest president. So it's important to read Scott Johnson on this telling aspect of the Messiah's narcissism. Professor Thomas Krannawitter also nails the Messiah with his analysis.

NSFI.

Messianic Hypocrisy
William McGurn quotes a remarkably prescient Messiah from his sweeping autobiography, The Audacity of Me:

Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained -- by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate -- to negotiate in good faith.

If these conditions do not hold -- if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so -- the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this "compromise" of being "obstructionist."

For the minority party in such circumstances, 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being "moderate" or "centrist."

As we have seen.

Meanwhile Obama is in Colorado to sign the Porkulus bill and the Dow, down 270 points today so far, continues to vote "no."

UPDATE
Fun with Photoshop.

You're the head of a television network whose cutting-edge mandate is to "help portray Muslims in a more positive light". What to do, what to do...

Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

"He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning.

Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light...

..."Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible," Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said today.

Obviously. Good thing then that it appears to be confined to a specific community.

The Bridges TV mission statement reads:

Bridges TV aims to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations. Through our high-quality, informative, 24x7 programming in English; we seek to become a unifying force that can help people understand our diverse world through entertainment and education.

I don't know about entertaining, but it sure doesn't get any more educational than that.

UPDATE
Mark Steyn has the bigger picture.

Reagan vs. The Messiah



Liberty vs. fascism.

Republican senator Judd Gregg, nominated by the Messiah to head the Commerce Department, has withdrawn in protest against the Messiah's move to violate the Constitution by taking over control of the national census, which by law falls under Commerce jurisdiction.

Drudge's subhead: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH.

For Immediate Release: Thursday, February 12, 2009

Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal for Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary

Sen. Gregg stated, “I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.

“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

“I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

“As we move forward, I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the President’s proposals. This will certainly be a goal of mine.

“Kathy and I also want to specifically thank Governor Lynch and Bonnie Newman for their friendship and assistance during this period. In addition we wish to thank all the people, especially in New Hampshire, who have been so kind and generous in their supportive comments.

“As a further matter of clarification, nothing about the vetting process played any role in this decision. I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate.”

Translation: "I don't do window dressing."

Bonus Round:
1. Gregg stays on as a Republican senator in the House. Numbers, baby. Stimulus package, baby;
2. Huge, huge embarrassment to the Messiah, who now that he's not just in Chicago anymore shows less skill manipulating for political gain than Al Gore;
3. Typical Rahm-Emanuel-shits-the-bed-moment, brought to the Messiah by, err, Rahm Emanuel;
4. Gregg's decision took the hapless Messiah administration completely by surprise- they heard about it from reporters. Eewwww. Guess they weren't listening to the drums;
5. After this special and precious fiasco, New Hampshire's Democrat governor John Lynch is now probably deeply, madly pissed at the Messiah for being forced to agree to appoint a Republican in Gregg's place as a quid pro quo, hardy har.

A rube might opine that it doesn't get any better than this, but experience tells me that it most surely does.

This is gonna be great.

American Thinker's Ed Lasky:

When addressing families of terror victims regarding his decision to suspend military tribunals of suspected terrorists, President Obama "clearly didn't do his homework" according to the Washington Times. His own legal counsel Greg Craig admitted the President made mistakes when discussing details about terrorism and made a key error when he tried to explain the law to the families.

The column points out that terror suspects want as much information as they can so they can inform terror networks about the methods and people used by our government to track down terror suspects. This is one reason they dismiss their lawyers: they alone can receive these disclosures without having to go through the "filter" of a lawyer.

This facilitates terror in the future. Therefore, prosecutors want to minimize the information released to suspects and to courts; while terror suspects want to maximize the disclosure. When confronted with this conundrum, the President mistakenly interpreted basic Constitutional law.

What else is new?

Lasky then quotes the Times:

... Obama's answer to this conundrum was "there is no reason we have to give [the terrorists] everything." Evidently the former editor of the Harvard Law Review seems to think that one of his powers as president is personally to pick and choose which constitutional rights apply to terror defendants and which do not. That's the very thing they were criticizing President Bush for.

White House Counsel Greg Craig, often seen whispering in the president's ear during question periods, admitted later to Ms. Burlingame that the chief executive was getting the facts of the law wrong during the discussion with the families. Craig asked her if CIPA covers a case in which terrorists defend themselves, noting that "this is something we hadn't contemplated." If nothing else, this admission of ignorance is more evidence that the decision to rush ahead with closing Guantanamo and shutting down the military tribunals was ill-conceived, poorly planned, and may ultimately be injurious to our national security.

The message not only to the families of terror victims, but to all Americans: The One on whom you must rely for protection against terror and justice in its wake is not up to the job; it's above His pay grade.

Page A6 in today's Post:

President Obama likes to portray the battle over the economic stimulus package that passed the Senate on Tuesday as a stark choice between his approach and that of those who would "do nothing."

"Nothing is not an option. You didn't send me to Washington to do nothing," Obama told a gathering of 1,500 here on Tuesday, bringing the crowd to its feet as he campaigned for passage of the more than $800 billion package.

The president used the same language Monday in his first prime-time news conference, suggesting that lawmakers who opposed his prescription want the government to ignore the deepening economic crisis.

"There seems to be a set of folks who—I don't doubt their sincerity—who just believe that we should do nothing," [The Messiah] said.

But in truth, few of those involved in the stimulus debate are suggesting that the government should not take action to aid the cratering economy.

Many of the president's fiercest congressional critics support a stimulus package of similar size but think it should be built around a much higher proportion of tax cuts than new spending. Others have called for a plan that is half the size of the one headed for a House-Senate conference—still massive by historical standards.

Even those who think that no new government spending is necessary do not advocate a stand-still approach. A newspaper ad by the Cato Institute, signed by 250 economists, argued for removing "impediments to work, saving, investment and production" and said that "lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."

The Post being the Post, they can't get through this without putting up their favorite bugaboos:

During debates with Democrats about the Iraq war, Bush often cast his rivals as believing that "the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day."

Actually, "his rivals" cast themselves that way. See Dingy Harry. That is if you can stomach the son of a bitch one last time.

He sometimes derided critics of his health-care policies as people "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care."

See Tom Daschle; the Porkulus Package.

Talking about the fight against terrorism, Bush often warned of those "who say we are not at war."

Goddamned fear-monger.

Compiled by the NRO Staff:

New York Times: Stocks Slide as New Bailout Disappoints

New York Times: For Geithner’s Debut, a Lukewarm Reception

Washington Post: In $1.5 Trillion Rescue, Few Details; Wall Street Responds With a Sharp Sell-Off, Sinking Dow 4.6 Percent

Washington Post: Wall Street's Sharp Rebuke To Rescue Short on Detail

WSJ: Market Pans Bank Rescue Plan

WSJ: Treasury Secretary Gets a Chilly Reception

Boston Globe:US sets massive bank rescue, stirs worries on Wall Street

Investor’s Business Daily: Market Tumbles As $2 Trillion Bank Fix Skimps On Details

LA Times: Stocks tumble after Geithner unveils financial plan

NY Post: Bailout Bombs

Politico: Geithner's bear of a day

Washington Times: Obama bank plan skids on Wall Street

Time: Why Geithner's Rescue Plan Spooked the Markets

Newsweek: Stocks tumble after gov't unveils financial plan

Fortune: Geithner's plan falls flat

CNN: Wall Street: Thumbs down on bailout

Reuters: Geithner on the defensive in his big debut

Reuters: Stocks sink over 4 percent on bank plan apprehension

Reuters: U.S. offers $2 trillion bank plan but stocks slump

AP: Stocks tumble after gov't unveils financial plan

McClatchy: Treasury outlines bank rescue plan, but Wall Street frowns

McClatchy: New bank bailout fails to address core economic problems

That's Wall Street's response to the passing of the Porkulus package.

The Dow dropped almost 400 points today, with the Messiah leading the trash-talk.

Larry Kudlow:

Obama got the ball rolling by painting a dismal picture of the U.S. economy, saying recovery won’t arrive until 2010 at the earliest. He then said only big-government spending can jolt our economy back to life. He also bitterly attacked supply-siders and the Bush tax cuts, especially “tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans.” He added that these strategies have “only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.”

You can say a lot of things about President George W. Bush’s big-government mistakes. But blaming the Bush tax cuts for the credit-crunched downturn is utter nonsense. It’s ideological politics at its worst. (It’s worth noting that while Obama was trashing supply-siders on Monday night, Scott Rasmussen’s latest poll showed 62 percent of U.S. voters wanting the stimulus plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.)

Later in the news conference, Obama acknowledged how businesses that suddenly couldn’t get credit pulled back on their investment and laid off workers — workers who then cut back on their spending. That — along with the Fed’s stop-and-go monetary policy and a huge oil shock — is much closer to the true cause of this recession.

This is all most strange. Obama’s attack on supply-side economics would rule out the successful Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts that spurred growth in the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts that ignited growth in the 1980s. Even Bill Clinton cut the capital-gains tax. And George W. Bush’s tax cuts helped generate a six-year economic expansion before the oil shock and credit crunch took hold.

On Tuesday morning, stocks opened down about 75 points in the wake of Obama’s pessimism. But stocks really started to tumble when Tim Geithner stepped to the microphone. He totally bombed in his debut.

The Messiah is actually stoking the financial crisis.

The Messiah's genius manifests on Wall Street:

US stocks fell sharply Tuesday, led by banks, as details of the government’s latest bank bailout plan trickled out.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down about 70 points, then lost another 100 in a matter of minutes -- before even any official government announcement.

Treasury Secretary Tim Geither will reveal the proposals to help banks at 11 am New York time, after a one-day delay. CNBC will interview Geithner after his speech, at noon. Then he's on to Capitol Hill, where he will testify before a House panel.

Some market watchers remain skeptical over the benefits of the plan and legendary investor Jim Rogers told CNBC it could even make things worse. The bailout will plunge the US further into debt and it is designed by the same people who failed to forecast the crisis in the first place, Rogers said.

Perhaps it's unfair to blame the Messiah for the effect Geithner's announced plan has had on the markets, since He obviously didn't have a fucking clue what was in it.

Or as Jonah Goldberg refers to it, The Leadership Cult As Self-Worship, and yes, it is creepy beyond words.

Here we go again.

The Messiah, January 8, 2009:

Only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle that are (sic -- is) crippling our economy. That's why we need to act boldly and act now, to reverse these cycles. That's why we need to restart the flow of credit and restore the rules of the road that will ensure a crisis like this never happens again.

The Messiah, January 28, 2009:

In the end, the answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands or in the hands of our legislators than it does with America's workers and the businesses that employ them. They are the ones whose efforts and ideas will determine our economic destiny just as they always have, for in the end it's businesses -- large and small -- that generate the jobs, provide the salaries, and serve as the foundation on which the American people's lives and dreams depend. All we can do, those of us here in Washington, as to help create a favorable climate in which workers can prosper, businesses can thrive, and our economy can grow.

The Messiah, February 9, 2009:

It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. But at this particular moment, with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.

Whatever you say, Mess. Reality is still reality.

The Anchoress is tracking the Messiah's Lies with her Obamarama Linkapalooza:

Obama outright lied last night - at least twice - and showed a tenuous grasp of history. I disagree with Ed about the history part. Obama understands history very well. He understands that if you lie about history enough, then the lie becomes the “truth” as far as the populace is concerned. Just like when Obama spoke to al-Arabiya TV and completely mischaracterized the “last 20-30 years” history between the Arab nations in the Middle East and the US. “A lie told often enough becomes the truth” who said that first? Oh, right… it was first said by Lenin! See Ed? Obama knows history! And too many of us have forgotten.

Lenin wasn't the only expert on lies. Here's Joseph Goebbels:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

And therefore of the left.

...about the Stealth Health Care Plan zipped up inside the Messiah's Porkulus bill. Betsy McCaughey writing in Bloomberg explains why it would upset them so:

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle’s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis.

In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision.

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

So for those folks who don't like their medical insurance company dictating their health care treatment choices, just wait until the Messiah gets hold of your chart, because if you're old, you're screwed. You'll just have to accept getting steamrolled by the Circle of Life.

I don't know that my beloved mother would have benefited from Messiahcare after her heart attack a few years ago; were the Messiah calling the shots for her she probably would have just been left for conveniently dead rather than resuscitated and still alive as she is now. But I can understand how an idiot could look past all that and mindlessly gush "Oh Yeah" at the Messiah's coronation, never mind that he would have allowed my mother to die as a matter of Medicare expediency.

Anyway, that's just one aspect of the new Messiahcare that will take personal choice in health care and put it in the hands of the Messiah. But it gets much, much worse: the new Messiahcare is but one of hundreds of government-expanding measures in this immoral, rotten looting of Americans' fortunes, rights and freedoms.

No wonder the Messiah and his Democrat minions in Congress are in such a hurry to get it past the voters, out of sight and out of mind.

Oh Yeah.

Ed Morrissey on Chris Dodd's pathetic posturing:

The Times wants to sell Dodd as a victim of the “moneyed Washington subculture where powerful incumbents are invited to get something wholesale,” but that’s poppycock. The man who accepts a bribe is no more of a victim than the man who offers it. It takes both to create corruption, and it’s hard to find a more bald example of it than this. Dodd oversaw Countrywide as part of his committee chairmanship and understood that when he accepted the two loans for below-market rates and no-points acceptance. Countrywide later went belly-up, costing the nation billions of dollars for its easy-terms lending practices, and Dodd has been among the voices blaming the collapse of the lending markets on poor oversight. Well, he ought to know that firsthand, oughtn’t he?

Of course. But we're talking Chris Dodd's pathetic posturing here. That's what Chris Dodd does.

The more He talks...

HT Kate

With the Messiah and His Democrats committing larceny against the American people on a historic scale, it's a good idea to look back at the man who understood only too well what those idiots will never grasp, not even after it's too late.



At least Donahue had the courtesy to listen quietly while Mr. Friedman was answering his idiotic questions; think Jon Stewart. I also have to hand it to Uncle Milty for having the generosity of spirit to not laugh out loud at Donahue's hopeless naivete, although you can see he comes close.

HT Power Line

Yes We Can!



Via Ace, fun from Slublog:


Recurring Theme Alert!

In celebration of yesterday's two-year anniversary of the Fox hit late-late show Red Eye, here's part of that episode's Gregalogue:

As simple as the premise may be, Red Eye is a tough show to describe – it's intentionally stupid, but secretly smart - a strategy designed to confuse people who deserve to be confused: bitter liberals, tortured media whores, angry activists. We gauged our success on the groups we manage to turn into sputtering messes – whether it be PETA, GLAAD, Media Matters, and the finger sniffers at assorted left wing blogs. The strategy was based on an idea I coined, called "The Dean Wormer Effect," named after the hapless character from the classic film Animal House. For so long, in movies and tv, non-liberals were always portrayed as stiff, shrill joyless types – typified by Dean Wormer. The stereotype went completely unquestioned, but it was totally dishonest. My goal at Red Eye was to reverse that polarity: to turn the lefties who think they`re edgy and cool into contemporary Dean Wormers – because in their hearts that`s what they are - PC crybabies determined to root out all the fun in the world. In a word: jackasses.

And it worked.

Wow, indeed.

The Messiah's latest expiration date has arrived, that being the one on His campaign promises. You remember, the ones He made promising "pay as you go" fiscal responsibility ("Every dollar that I’ve proposed, I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.”), give 95% of Americans a tax break, cut wasteful spending, and "put an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas".

So much for all that; it was all lies anyway, we knew that. And now He's throwing as much crap at the wall as He can in the form of recycled campaign rhetoric (which is all it ever was: rhetoric rather than anything substantial like oh, say, policy), hoping some of it will stick like it did during His campaign for Hopey Changiness. It's all as predictable as, well, as any of his ridiculously vacuous campaign speeches.

His trump card in all this? "I won." As Rich Lowry explains, that little turn of smarm is all the proof anyone needs that the Messiah has run out of arguments for the substance, in fact the very existence, of the Porkulus bill.

As far as political arguments go, “I won” has its power—provided it’s made on behalf of an agenda ratified by the American electorate. But Obama didn’t campaign on a sprawling, nearly $1 trillion new spending plan. If he had pledged in October to double federal domestic discretionary spending in a matter of weeks—including increasing the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by a third, spending hundreds of millions more on federal buildings and throwing tens of billions on every traditional liberal priority from job training to Pell Grants—he’d have been hard-pressed to win at all...

...Now, circumstances change, and no president can adhere to every jot and tittle from his campaign, but the “I won” argument only works if the campaign program matches the governing program. Obama himself seems confused on what exactly “I won” means...

...When Barack Obama ran last year, he didn’t say he’d engage in faith-based economic policy on a grand scale. He didn’t say he’d toss aside the normal processes of governing. He didn’t say he’d quickly act to add waste to the federal budget. And he didn’t say he’d try to brush away criticism with the mere assertion of his victory. On the stimulus, when Obama says “I won,” he’s out of better arguments.

Reminds me of another self-absorbed punkass "franchise player" completely clueless to his own lack of character and judgement:

Caution: NSFI

The Messiah, apparently completely missing the delicious irony of the moment, argues for the sanctity of life:

"We know there is no God who condones the killing of an innocent human being."

But Barack Obama does.

The Messiah, apparently completely missing the delicious irony of the moment, argues against the very concept of government bailouts:

[W]hat gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

I've been daily astounded by the monumental numbers Democrats continue to throw around in the name of "stimulating" the economy: are things really that bad? I mean, a trillion-dollars-borrowed-on-the-backs-of-three-or-four-succeeding-generations-bad? So bad that for the first time in recorded history, tax cuts will have absolutely no resuscitative effect on the economy?

I mean, that's just extraordinary, I tell ya.

But I'm happy to say that I have discovered an overarching context that, once accounted for, draws everything into perfect perspective. And the best thing about it is that it's very simple to understand. Just watch this video, listen to Nuancy the Pelosian One discuss looming unemployment statistics, and you will experience a moment of enlightenment that will shake you to your very soul:



That's right: Democrats just plain can't fucking count. This should not be a surprise: they can't do anything else of any value either.

On the other hand, perhaps the Pelosian One was thinking about Acorn voter rolls.

Sad but true, mostly true (sorry, Ace, there I go again): the Radio Station of the Orifice of the Messiah-Elect is no more.

Inevitable, really.

Although, who knows? Maybe they'll continue broadcasting in a five-foot radius from a basement studio somewhere in Crow's Fart, Nebraska, captivating rabid idiots still jagging on what's left of what's left of what's left of the tattered remnants of the flotsam remaining from the jetsam separated from the detritus that used to be marginally possibly identified as having perhaps been a disfigured vestigal offspring of an idiotic delusion that leftist retards could actually find someone, anyone interested in their ignorance and stupidity long enough to listen for more than eight Godforsaken seconds.

I believe it was called Air Ameri-Duhhh, and it was run by drunks, retards and thieves.

But it sure was Great Radio! Yeeeeaaaarrggghhh!

S-T-R-E-N-G-T-H

CIA-directed airstrikes against al-Qaida leaders and facilities in Pakistan over the past six to nine months have been so successful, according to senior U.S. officials, that it is now possible to foresee a "complete al-Qaida defeat" in the mountainous region along the border with Afghanistan.

The officials say the terrorist network's leadership cadre has been "decimated," with up to a dozen senior and midlevel operatives killed as a result of the strikes and the remaining leaders reeling from the repeated attacks.

"The enemy is really, really struggling," says one senior U.S. counterterrorism official. "These attacks have produced the broadest, deepest and most rapid reduction in al-Qaida senior leadership that we've seen in several years."

S-U-B-M-I-S-S-I-O-N

"Diplomatic sources said Barack Obama has engaged several Arab intermediaries to relay messages to and from al Qaeda in the months before his elections as the 44th U.S. president. The sources said al Qaeda has offered what they termed a truce in exchange for a U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan. 'For the last few months, Obama has been receiving and sending feelers to those close to al Qaeda on whether the group would end its terrorist campaign against the United States,' a diplomatic source said. 'Obama sees this as helpful to his plans to essentially withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq during his first term in office.' "

Negotiating with al Qaeda is "helpful" to the Messiah's plans.

Well isn't that special.

For American national security and the freedoms of 25 million Afghanis, not so much.

Bonus Round, via Patterico:
Barack Obama, January 5, 2009:
“I will continue to insist that, when it comes to foreign affairs, it is particularly important to emphasize that there is one president at a time,” Obama said Monday. “There are delicate negotiations taking place right now and we can’t have two voices coming out of the United States when you have so much at stake.”

The Messiah: liah.

Question: Who among Democratic tax cheats (and really, is there any other kind?) playing musical chairs around the Messiah administration will be left standing when the music stops?

Answer: Tom Daschle, hardy-har. This is so fresh there isn't even a link yet, but here's the ABC News website headline:

Tax-Troubled Tom Daschle Withdraws Nomination; Obama Accepts With 'Sadness and Regret'

Mark Steyn just pointed out on Rush's show how badly Daschle has been suckered: at least Geithner still got to play after paying his taxes. Daschle has shelled out over 120 large and gets diddly-squat. Now that is f***in' funny.

Flaming Skull Alert at Ace's:

Let's review the super awesome start of this new and most ethical administration evah! Bill Richardson, out over a federal indictment. Daschle and Killefer out over taxes. Geithner squeaks by with his tax problem. And let's not forget the waivers for all the lobbyists (what, 15 in 15 days? That's gotta be some kind of record for ethical rope-jumping ~ Ed.) that Obama said he wouldn't have to begin with.

NEXT!!!

$946.69. Wow.

More hardy-har: can you say "presumptuous"?

They all look so Messiah-dusted, don't they?

So there I was in my Monday night writing class workshopping with my peeps and critiquing three of their submissions when environmental watchdog/citizen of the world Tricia puts up her hand and declares that she is offended by my use of the exclusionary term "manpower".

The horror.

To which I answered that not only do I do not share her concern, but that her concern lacks dignity because it wallows in victimhood.

And victimhood is boring and destructive.

I remain unscathed.

At Gateway Pundit

Barack Obama: "Preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."
Barack Obama July 19, 2007

But, today Iraq is one genocide that wasn't.

Today there is Victory in Iraq.

Today there is democracy in Iraq.

No thanks to the Messiah and his fellow Democrats.

We get this all the time from idiots. They can't see why Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power, and they've no problem with Saddam's genocide of the Iraqi people, but Bush is a terrorist.

Fucking geniuses.

Meanwhile, the Messiah is killing Pakistanis and signing Executive Orders allowing for increased rendition.

So now rendition and civilian casualties are okay? Fine by me: I've been there all along. Looks like the Messiah and me gots some common ground, yo.

The Messiah is leaving Kentucky to fend for itself, just as the idiots pretended Bush was doing in New Orleans. Only this time it's real.

Mark Steyn and Hugh Hewitt discuss the Democrats' Porkapalooza and the Messiah's horribly botched al-Arabiya interview:

HH: ... Now I’ve got to move to the other danger, though, because we’ve been so fixed on this ridiculous non-stimulus stimulus that a lot of people have missed the Obama appeal to Arabiya, and the fact that he didn’t bring up its gender apartheid, Christopher Hitchens calls it. It’s where gays are executed. And he made no rebuke to these societies. I found it astonishing, Mark Steyn. What did you think?

MS: Well, you don’t have to be gay, an oppressed homosexual about to be executed. You don’t have to be a woman who’s being sold to an arranged child marriage. You just have to be a moderate, centrist Arab intellectual in, say, Cairo or Amman, and you listen to Obama sucking up to these creeps, and there’s nothing for you in it. What he’s doing is he says, he’s saying to hell with the Bush freedom agenda. We just want to get back to schmoozing the feted Arab dictatorships and the mullahs in Tehran all over again. And so if you’re a gay or a woman, you’re out of there. And as I said, if you’re a moderate Arab who just would like to have a free society in Cairo or Amman or wherever, you’re out of it, too. You’re on the Obama horizon. It was a pathetic, disgraceful Jimmy Carter speech.

HH: I agree with this, and he did it on the day that the Iranians arrested those horrible criminals in Tehran who allowed the women soccer players to play with the men soccer players.

MS: Right.

HH: And this is, I guess it’s beyond his understanding yet that everything he does has many audiences. You know, George Bush once told a bunch of us in the Oval Office that everything he did had many audiences. The number most important to him was the American military abroad.

MS: Right.

HH: …but that these audiences, you’ve got to think through that. I don’t think he actually gets that yet.

MS: No, I don’t. I think in fact, on that al-Arabiya interview, he just sounded basically way out of his league. And I hope someone brings him up to speed soon, because going around giving those interviews, as I said, he was talking about getting us back to thirty years ago. Well, thirty years ago, they were taking Americans hostage in Tehran. Thirty years ago, Jimmy Carter was communicating weakness to the world, and the Ayatollah rightly concluded these Americans are pushovers. And Obama shouldn’t be doing that message all over again.

Of course, we all know what happened immediately after the Messiah blew the mullahs a kiss via al-Arabiya. Breitbart:

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the (Iranian) government spokesman said on Saturday. "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying. "Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

This was a totally predictable response to the Messiah's arrogance. Is He a Change from Bush's handling of our enemies?

Absolutely. You bet.

Is the Messiah going to be as effective as Bush in defeating the Islamist enemy? Will he prevent Iran from getting the Bomb?

Whadayu, drunk?