Pretty much everything I have to say about the matter is here.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: A competitive special election loom to replace Murtha.

Acting like ClimateGate and UN-Gate never existed, the tone-deaf anti Quixotes over at the LA Times continue to tilt at windmills:

Even before Republican Scott Brown’s stunning election to the Senate in traditionally Democratic Massachusetts last month, it was proving hard to corral moderate Democrats to support a bill capping greenhouse gas emissions. Now they’re afraid to back anything that could be perceived as harmful to the economy. “Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told the New York Times. That’s a distressing comment coming from one of the three senators supposedly crafting a compromise climate bill that’s capable of achieving a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

President Obama has backed down too. On Tuesday, he signaled that cap-and-trade could go the way of healthcare reform’s “public option,” saying it could be removed from the climate bill. That would eliminate the market mechanism for pricing greenhouse gas pollution — and without setting such a carbon price, other measures under consideration, such as a national renewable energy standard, won’t go far enough to significantly slow global warming.

And whatever will the Billy Goats Gruff do about the troll that remains under the bridge?

The gig is up. The party is over. Nobody buys your claptrap anymore.

Go back to the drawing board, warmers–time to come up with another scam.

Is this site racist?

Quote

“…(that) they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.

While the ad was no doubt a clever marketing ploy by the front office at McDonald’s, the ad also showcases so much of what is wrong in our society when it comes to dealing with the issue of race.

Balkanization and ‘multiculturalism’ will not cure racism. Rather, it is my contention that by focusing on cultural differences, the ‘multiculturalism’ movement did more to foster balkanization, racism, misunderstanding and mistrust between races than white supremacist groups were ever able to accomplish.

Racism and division will not end until people stop focusing on the amount of melanin in one’s skin, and instead focus on our common humanity, and common goals as fellow citizens of these United States.

Only by focusing on shared, common values as human beings will we be able to move forward; and then and only then will we be able to achieve Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society.

Jules Crittendon (quoting an article from the Boston Herald, and echoed by Ed Morrissey), has reported that Massachusetts GOP Senatorial Candidate Scott Brown has received little support, and may have actually been written off by the RNC.

Having just gotten off a blogger conference call with Mr. Brown, I can categorically state that Brown denies any lack of support for his campaign by the RNC. In fact, in the call Brown stated that his campaign has received “..everything from the RNC that we have asked for.”

It would appear that the story from the Boston Herald was designed not to report on the status of, but rather to outright sabotage the momentum of Brown’s Senate campaign.

Regardless, Brown did state that he looks forward to donations from every corner of the country, since his election would assist not only the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but the entire nation.

Indeed, Brown’s election would break the stranglehold majority that the DNC has on the U.S. Senate, and it would be nearly axiomatic that Obamacare, at least in its current form, would not see the light of day in a final Senate vote.

In fact, it is very likely that the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy may be our last hope in evading what could be a very dark chapter in America’s history.

If you are so inclined, please donate to Brown’s campaign here.

UPDATE: Polipundit says Brown can win…

Click on the above photo, taken in May, 2008, in Bozeman, MT, to view it in full size. Pay special attention to Obama’s book of choice in the inset. The name of the book is “The Post-American World,” by Fareed Zakaria, who also happens to be the editor for Newsweek International (of the fatal Koran Flushing Non-Incident Incident fame).

And what, pray tell, is the subject matter of the “Post American World?” In part,

Zakaria describes with equal prescience a world in which the United States will no longer dominate the global economy, orchestrate geopolitics, or overwhelm cultures. He sees the “rise of the rest”—the growth of countries like China, India, Brazil,…

Is Obama’s choice of reading material in the picture any coincidence, given that Barack Obama is the only president in my lifetime who has never spoken of America’s greatness, nor advanced the ideal of American exceptionalism? Is the choice any coincidence, given that Barack Hussein Obama chose for two decades to attend a church whose pastor regularly engaged in anti-American rants?

Is his reading material of choice truly a mere happenstance, given that in his lifetime Obama chose to associate himself with terrorists who loved their country so much they decided it was best to literally blow up its institutions with impunity?

Most important of all, is our President’s choice of reading material in the photo really any coincidence, in light of Barack Obama’s perpetual apology tours, a domestic spending agenda and a “climate change” agenda that will surely bankrupt us for generations to come, not to mention the recently proposed windfall transfer of wealth to third world tinhorn dictatorships? For that matter, Obama’s feckless, half-hearted attempts to de-nuclearize Tehran speaks volumes, especially given his declaration in his much vaunted Cairo speech that “…No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”

In summary, one could certainly argue that the President’s agenda, nay, his very upbringing, breadth of experience and associations have rendered him a tailor-made instrument that would bring Zakaria’s vision of a “Post American World” into reality. As a matter of fact, given his choice of reading material, it’s not that much of a stretch to infer that it is Obama’s very intention that Zakaria’s vision of a neutered, feckless America, no longer a leader on the world stage, is nothing less than a foregone conclusion.

A bill pending in the U.S. Senate to provide shield protection to journalists who choose to protect their sources leaves out one very important part of journalism. I don’t usually go to Daily Kos for my information, but a tweet pointed me here: Continue reading →

Some of my liberal counterparts had near apoplectic responses to John Hinderacker’s article entitled, “Why does he hate us?” In it, Hinderacker highlights his compatriot Paul Mirengoff’s article in The Examiner, an excerpt of which follows:

In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.

To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter’s America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.

But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer t[he] world. Obama will not grant America even that.

Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer’s election could hardly have been more lukewarm.

It seems that, in Obama’s view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies.

This led one of my liberal acquaintances to retort:

Sorry, but the “facts” in the article simply do not lead to the conclusion that constitutes the assertion in the title.

So, Does Barack Hussein Obama really hate America? Consider the following:

In his formative years, young Barry Soetoro hung out with the likes of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, who loved America so much they decided to bomb the living crap out of it.

The guy sat in a church for 20 years listening to a guy screaming “G-d Dmn America!”

Barack Hussein Obama, himself, in his own words, said the Constitution was a flawed document because it did nothing to ‘spread the wealth.’

Obama never misses an opportunity to apologize for what he feels to be American ‘arrogance.’ (yet he himself, is the paragon of arrogance).

Rather than speaking of American greatness, Obama speaks only of its perceived flaws. Rather than build on the principles that made America great, he seems to feel that it is his job to single-handedly correct what he believes to be over two centuries of wrong-minded policies, and to turn America and its founding principles on its head as a means to weaken and humble our nation in the process.

Barack Hussein Obama never speaks of a strong America; he never speaks of America being a leader for freedom; but instead he speaks of America as a nation in need of neutering, one to be relegated to be on equal footing (or lower) with even the most rogue of nations. Rather than the Monroe, Truman, JFK, Reagan, and Bush doctrines, which each recognized the greatness of America and sought to protect and champion the cause of freedom and liberty around the globe, Obama’s is the new doctrine of “American moral relativism;” rather than being clothed in Old Glory, we are now bathed in sackcloths and ashes, being beaten down and forced to atone for what in Obama’s mind are past and unforgivable wrongs. Rather than stand up to tyrants, dictators, and monarchs, he bows before them in supplication. Rather than representing America in strength, he cowers in his own fecklessness.

In an effort to hasten his remaking of America, Obama has even cheapened the very structure, fidelity and integrity of governance, appointing a wide variety of tax scofflaws, avowed communists, and innumerable unelected, unaccountable ‘czars‘ to carry out his policies.

I would therefore submit that, taking into account how he chose to spend his developing years and as is certainly evident in the intent of and in the way he conducts policy, it most veritably can be inferred that Barack Obama isn’t necessarily a fan of that for which America has traditionally stood.

In fact, to make the inference that Barack Hussein Obama loves America and all for which it has traditionally stood is certainly more of a stretch of inference than is its corollary.

Yes, I know, any news over 24 hours old in the blogosphere is old news. But I couldn’t pass up the opportunity brought about by the ‘resignation’ of Anita Dunn to do this song parody:

(image via Scott Thong)

Another One’s Under the Bus by Barack Obama
(with apologies to Freddie Mercury)

The Maoist walks up to the podium with the mic pulled way down low
Fawning press thrown at her feet, the presser’s ready to go!
Are you ready? Hey, are you ready for this?
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat?
Gonna wage war on ol’ Fox News, they’ll go down in defeat!
But
Thump-thump-thwump Anita’s thrown under the bus..yeah
Thump-thump-thwump And Anita Dunn’s under the bus!
And another one gone
And another one down
Another one bites the dust
Hey, Obama’s gonna get you too
Another one’s under the bus!

How’s Obama gonna get along without you when you’re gone?
You gave him everything that you had but he kicked you out of his home
Is he happy? Is he satisfied?
How long can he stand the heat?
Out of the bus another corpse slips to the sound of the beat (Look out)
Thump-thump-thwump Another one’s under the bus..yeah
Thump-thump-thwump Another one’s under the bus..
And another one down
And another one gone
Another one’s under the bus!
Hey, Obama’s gonna get you too
Another one’s under the bus!

HEY
Oh, it’s crowded
Bite the dust
Under the bus yeah

Hey
Another one bites the dust
Another one’s under the bus, oh
Another one bites the dust, hey, hey
Another one’s under the bus, heeeeey
Oh, shoo ’em out!

There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man and throw him to the lost n found
You can ask Jeremiah you can ask Van Jones
Even Grandma hit the ground!
But I’m ready, yes I’m ready for you
I’m standing on my own two feet, but
Out of the doorway another corpse slips, repeating the sound of the beat. Oh yeeeah
Thump-thump-thwump Another one’s under the bus!
Thump-thump-thwump Another one bites the dust
And another one down
And another one gone
Another one’s under the bus
Hey, Obama’s gonna get you too
Another one’s under the bus
Shoot it
Hey
Alright

Camille Paglia is no conservative. In fact, Camille Paglia is no Republican. Camille Paglia is, in fact, a feminist Democrat. That’s why I found her latest piece at Salon.com so fascinating.

When I first saw the article, entitled, “Pelosi’s Victory for Women,” I thought, “Okay, here we go–another Nancy Pelosi mindless puff piece.”

The first two paragraphs certainly did not disappoint:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi scored a giant gain for feminism last weekend. In shoving her controversy-plagued healthcare reform bill to victory by a paper-thin margin, she conclusively demonstrated that a woman can be just as gritty, ruthless and arm-twisting in pursuing her agenda as anyone in the long line of fabled male speakers before her. Even a basic feminist shibboleth like abortion rights became just another card for Pelosi to deal and swap.

It was a stunningly impressive recovery for someone who seemed to be coming apart at the seams last summer, when a sputtering, rattled Pelosi struggled to deal with the nationwide insurgency of town hall protesters — reputable, concerned citizens whom she outrageously tried to tar as Nazis. Whether or not her bill survives in the Senate is immaterial: Pelosi’s hard-won, trench-warfare win sets a new standard for U.S. women politicians and is certainly well beyond anything the posturing but ineffectual Hillary Clinton has ever achieved.

Yep, just a run of the mill flaming lib, blindly singing the phrases of another flaming lib.

But the following paragraph (and thereafter) blindsided my expectations:

As for the actual content of the House healthcare bill, horrors! Where to begin? That there are serious deficiencies and injustices in the U.S. healthcare system has been obvious for decades. To bring the poor and vulnerable into the fold has been a high ideal and an urgent goal for most Democrats. But this rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can’t my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators? Massively expanding the number of healthcare consumers without making due provision for the production of more healthcare providers means that we’re hurtling toward a staggering logjam of de facto rationing. Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors’ offices. They’ll probably try to hire Caribbean nannies as ringers to do the waiting for them.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

If a feminist liberal democrat like Camille Paglia gets it, are the rest of her liberal cohorts that brain-dead? Or are they merely blinded and necromanced by the promise of a socialist utopia, even if they have to destroy an entire nation to achieve it?