Is the concept of the "greenhouse effect" totally bogus?

Here's one scholarly work that says so.

Excerpt:

"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.

According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation."

Gee, I wonder why we haven't heard or read about this until now?

Cue the usual responses from the True Believers.

Iraq and Germany: Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan don't like the comparison

Max Boot tells both of those whiny, tiresome "progressives" to just deal with it.

Key point:

"But I get the sense that Marshall and Sullivan, like many of their antiwar compatriots, don’t really care about whether we win or lose in Iraq. They simply want to get out, and damn the consequences. That brings up another historical analogy that I’m sure they would rather forget: the way we pulled out of South Vietnam after the defeat of the North’s Tet and Easter Offensives when a decent outcome (namely the long-term preservation of South Vietnam’s independence) was within our grasp. A lot of antiwar voices back then said it would actually be good for the locals if we left, just as they now say it would be good for Iraq if we skedaddled. Tell it to the Vietnamese boat people or the victims of the Cambodian killing fields."


The abject impudence and ignorance of the anti-war crowd is simply astounding.

(hat tip: Power Line)

Interesting facts about the DC gun ban

Isn't it interesting that you haven't read or heard any of these facts from the Invented Constitutional Rights crowd or their media hacks accomplices?

Noteworthy:

"Question: Did the murder rate really triple under the Washington, DC, gun ban?

Answer: Yes. The murder rate was 26.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 1976, when the ban became law. That would be its lowest rate for the next 30 years. It peaked at 80.6 homicides per 100,000 people in 1991."

The more this election campaign progresses, the more Barry O sounds like John Kerry

Here's the latest evidence.

Key point:

" He now is hinting that an individual health insurance mandate–which he previously deemed was unneeded and burdensome to working people–might be just fine after all. It is hard to tell at this point whether he means it now, didn’t mean it before, or plans to mean it later on."

"Nuance" is back!

I love it.......

Common sense regarding the 08 Presidential election

"The sour mood in search of better is real enough. But the belief that Barack Obama has come among us as the angel of change looks to be a mile wide in intensity and a quarter-inch deep in reality."

-- Daniel Henninger

The Cone Project for 6-28-08

The babble, dribble, drool and spew continues by Cone and several of his favorite toadies on his current economic doom and gloom thread.

Prime example:

"I know you're having fun at Bubba's expense, but the fact is that the economy is large and complex, and simplistic binary statements about it are not always helpful.

The pot calls the kettle black. WAY too funny!

"While some of the stats you cite may be driven by the tax stimulus checks, and thus not sustainable..."

As if he actually understands the concepts involved!

"....it's not unmitigated gloom out there."

You wouldn't know it from your constant meme, you arrogant twerp.

Here's how habeas corpus works in Jihadistan

Not too well for these guys, apparently.

And yet no outcry from The Usual Suspects!

Oh wait......I forgot.

It wasn't the Bush administration responsible for this. It was just the Dem/Lefties/"Progressives"/Libthinkers favorite foreign allies that did this.

Yes, I understand now.

That makes it all OK.

Ooops! Yet ANOTHER little kink in the "scientific consensus" on "anthropogenic global warming" is discovered!

This story just CAN'T be right, can it, True Believers?

I mean, like, EVERYONE knows that the those evil CO2 emissions are causing the Arctic ice to melt!

The Canadian health care system is a failure

So says the man who spearheaded it's design.

Quote:

"'We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,' says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: 'We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.'"

Imagine that!

It looks like good old Dave Ribar will need to re-think his high opinion of that particular nation's version of universal health care.

"Global Warming" crimes against humanity: Disagreeing with Jimmy "The Geek" Hansen

Hansen's old nemesis, and local blahg contributor Pat Michaels has a re-cap of past and present shenanigans of The Goracle's favorite climate alarmist pal.

Noteworthy:

"So even though he predicted too much global warming, and his numbers couldn’t explain the ten-year hiatus we’ve experienced, Hansen keeps trying to sway presidential and congressional contests. And he wants to incarcerate any CEO (or scientist, probably) who casts doubt on his vision in public."

The Cone Project 6-27-08: Cheerleading again for the Doom and Gloom Economic News

Our chief local economic doom and gloom whiz doesn't know when to give it a rest.

This time, he proudly proclaims that "the bear arrives", noting an index benchmark has been achieved . He then proceeds to tell us "Like the official definition of a recession, the terminology doesn't really make much difference to most people". No irony is evident from him regarding the laughable inconsistency of measurement standards he exhibits in his statements.

He apparently sees some underlying need to remind his readers that things are much worse than they seem with his constant repeating of his "We're ALL So Screwed" meme. One can only guess his reasons, but rest assured there is some political/social/economic agenda philosophy behind them.

Meanwhile, unmentioned in his blog entries, and unknown to those poor folks who rely on "know-it-all pseudo experts" like him for economic intelligence, here are some things you might want to consider:

-- Economic growth continues, and positive signs exist for a strengthening dollar.

Indeed, Brian Wesbury at First Trust Portfolios thinks that:

"Recent economic data suggests real GDP growth is already accelerating out of the sluggishness we experienced in the last quarter of 2007. "

-- Factory orders remain constant for June

-- Retail sales look to be UP.

-- Existing home sales are UP.

-- Personal income is UP.

-- Consumer spending is UP.

-- Housing starts are virtually constant over previous periods.

-- Durable goods orders are virtually constant.

Do all these things mean that everything is rosy, that we have nothing to be concerned about? No, of course not.

But it does indicate that if you rely only upon what Ed Cone and the sycophant toads who enable him say, you're getting a decidedly skewed view of our economic situation. And you won't get the information you need to make the right decisions for yourself and your family.

However, you MIGHT just get the recession that Cone and his ilk propagate when their constant doom and gloom drumbeating wears sufficiently on consumer confidence. Or you could well get the COMPLETE financial disaster that would result from a Barack Obama presidency.

SCOTUS rules the DC gun ban unconstitutional

Story here.

Excerpt:

"The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history."


What does it mean?

It solidifies a right that Dems/Lefties/"Progressives"/Libthinkers/Nutrooters/Usual Suspects have been trying to undermine or eliminate for more that a half century.

Cue the whining, moaning, babble, dribble, drool, and spew we always expect in response to setbacks against their cherished agenda items.

Mike Barber thinks Robbie Perkins pulled another of his "business as usual" moves

Perkins greased the skids for a property buyer to receive preferential treatment in dealing with the city.

Barber:

"It appears a council member factored incentives into a land deal, went directly to staff which creates the appearance of inappropriate influence, lobbied other council members and made no disclosure until we get the presentation and set a public hearing."


Perkin's response, with the subterfuge eliminated:

"Who, me?"

Bonus information: The MitchManager backs up his most important enabler on City Council

Why are we not surprised at any of this?

When are we going to develop the political will to put a stop to the "business as usual" crowd?

And yet another over-the-hill radical wannabee turns up in Obama's corner

Read and learn about one Mike Klonsky, slimeball extraordinaire, and another connection that Obama doesn't want you to know about.

Noteworthy:

"Mike Klonsky - Communist leader...and along with Bill Ayers, promoter of American terrorism, created a school workshop that received a grant from the Annenberg Challenge, the Chicago branch created by Bill Ayers and had Barack Obama as president and chairman, and now Klonsky gets his own little blog on Obama's offical website..."

Just another co-incidence, I'm sure.

Nader: Obama not liberal enough or black enough

Uncle Ralphie says Barry O is playing to "white guilt"

Nader:

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law.....Haven't heard a thing."


Ah, yes.

Die-hard Lefties/"Progressives" never fade away. They just regurgitate their talking points from 40 years ago over and over and over and over and over and over......

In place of his now departed seal, this backdrop will be used for all future Obama visuals

(hat tip: The Weekly Standard's The Blog)

More about Obamanomics

Barry O's tax proposals are FAR WORSE than his cheerleaders would have you believe.

Noteworthy:

"It is shocking to think that we have a presidential candidate who would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer. More likely, given the calculated political design of the proposal, no one in the Obama campaign told the candidate about the economic, ethical or historical consequences of his suggestion.

This indicates that what is really on offer is not some postpartisan approach to politics, but a Democratic candidate far to the left of Bill Clinton."

All of which proves that we can not afford an obamnation in the office of the presidency.

Obama's insidious use of the Race Card

If he doesn't manage to fool enough people into electing him president, it will obviously be blamed on those "racists" who continue to point out his unsuitability for the office.

Typical of the nonsense of the "racist" meme:

"An even more audacious accusation came after Obama spoke of 'bitter' working people who 'cling to guns or religion.' Critics slammed him as an elitist, and many conservatives noted that he was the latest in a long line of liberal snobs.

One may think that that likening Obama to Adlai Ewing Stevenson II and John Forbes Kerry is about as un-racist as you can get. Yet journalist David K. Shipler wrote: 'Elitist is another word for for "arrogant", which is another word for "uppity", that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.'"

AP's solution for all that ails us?

"Vote Obama!"

Excerpt:

"American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s.

'All those periods were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored,' he said. 'Of course, that doesn't mean it will happen again.'

Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House."

And, as Ed Driscoll comments:

"Remember when AP helped its readers make sense of the news, instead of describing life as one long unfathomable horror? Of course, that was when AP was actually in business to report, instead of "changing the world", or these days, sending dunning notices to bloggers."

Also, I love this piece he quoted from Lileks:

"Previous generations rolled up their sleeves and swam out there and saved those polar bears. As for “abysmal” home values, it depends where you are; I’ll admit that people who sank everything in Miami condo markets are finding their psyches chipped and dinged, but A) lower home prices mean people who want to buy one but couldn’t afford it now are sitting better – B) the authors can take heart in this story about San Francisco being unaffordable for the middle class. Thank God! There’s hope!"

Ignoring the reality of a much needed change in energy policy

It's just business as usual for the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" element on this important national issue.


"Democrats appear wary of saying they oppose any boost in domestic oil production, which happens to be the position of a powerful interest group, the environmental lobby. But despite soaring gasoline prices, Democrats are against opening new areas of federal land or offshore for exploitation of oil and natural gas reserves.

Instead, they've come up with lame, dubious, or intellectually dishonest reasons for their opposition. Obama's insistence that the 'facts' of oil production haven't changed is just one of those."

Donald Lambro is right:

"There's no way to put this politely. Raising taxes on U.S. oil companies and calling it an energy plan is just about the dumbest idea the Democrats have come up with yet.

Democrats call it 'a windfall profits' tax, and it is at the heart of their plan to deal with punishing oil prices nearing $140 a barrel and skyrocketing gas prices that have crossed the $4-a-gallon threshold at the pump.

Their proposed tax increase will not produce a drop more oil. In fact, it will reduce supplies. And it will not lower oil prices, either. It will make oil more expensive, because oil company costs would rise as a result of higher taxes.

....Democrats seem to have a problem with what they deem to be 'windfall profits' only when it comes to oil. Farmers are raking in huge profits from corn to make ethanol, with heavy federal subsidies to boot. But there are no demands from Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama to slap corn growers with higher taxes to confiscate their earnings, even though the environmental ethanol craze has been driving up the cost of bread, cereal, meat, poultry and just about everything else we eat.

The legislation Democrats proposed did not pass the laugh test. Besides its windfall profits tax, the bill suggested that the United States sue the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (this is the way litigious lawyers in the world's most deliberative body think) and called for yet another federal commission to look for price gouging."

No, there's no possible threat from Iran in the forseeable future, is there?

ElBaradei says otherwise, despite his efforts to downplay the solution to the problem.

However, it's a good possibility that Israel will solve this problem for everyone else.

Noteworthy:

"Ahmadinejad's threats - including his indifference to the number of Iranians his actions may kill and his desire to bring about an apocalypse - have to be taken seriously.

While it's always good to avoid a fight against the neighborhood bully, sometimes the only way to do that is to stand up and show him that you won't back down. And the only way to do that is to be ready, willing and able to follow through if your standing up doesn't call the bully off."

We can already hear the whining and moaning of the Usual Suspects near and far.

No need for an interpreter

Here's a handy translation of the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"/Libthink agenda:

"In the interest of legislative process, whereby we hear many speeches on the floor, many members talk to their constituents; I’m going to try to bring a bit of enlightenment to this process with the use of a technological device as a ruler and chart. We’re going to learn how to speak Democrat today.

Speaking local Democrat. Often we hear the word progressive, which translates into regressive, as used in a sentence, democrats are progressive. The translation, Democrats are regressive.

We hear the word change which means the 1970’s. Democrats will bring you change. Translation, Democrats will bring you the 1970’s.

Government means socialism. Democrats support proactive government. Translation, Democrats support proactive socialism.

Enhance revenues translates into raise taxes. Democrats will enhance revenues. Translation, Democrats will raise taxes.

This is my favorite part. The rich means you. For example, Democrats will only tax the rich. Translation, Democrats will only tax you. Ouch.

Invest translates into waste. Again used in a sentence. Democrats will invest your money. Translation, Democrats will waste your money."

Is there any doubt this was a "marriage of convenience" for certain folks?

Here's what Obama's plan to eliminate the "Bush tax cuts for the rich" will do for you

EVERYONE'S effective tax rate goes UP.

Excerpt:

"They will not increase gradually, but immediately return to high levels. They will come regardless of the state of the economy. And they will come regardless of what politicians promise this year . . . unless they act by Congress passing and the president signing legislation.

Talk is cheap, particularly in an election year. But rest assured, the taxes of 2011 will not be."

(hat tip: Greg Mankiw)

Here's yet another example of "Change We Can Believe In"

Truly We're Able, no less.

As Rick Moran notes, it's creepy, as well as being scary.

Ah, but what do we know?

We're all bitter racists who cling to their guns and bibles, and distrust anything that's "not like us", right?

UPDATE:

Looks like the blunder is gone, but certainly won't be forgotten.

(Hat tip: Sister Toldjah)

"A Redefined 'GOP': Get Our Petroleum"

Good advice from IBD.

Noteworthy:

"'For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline,' Bush said Wednesday from the White House Rose Garden. 'Truckers and farmers, small-business owners have been hit especially hard. Every American who drives to work, purchases food or ships a product has felt the effect, and families across the country are looking to Washington for a response.'

The Democratic response has been to call for more taxes on oil companies and to pressure, even sue, OPEC. A group of 10 Democratic senators led by Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, joined by one independent, on Tuesday called for Bush to file a complaint against OPEC with the WTO.

Wow. That'll lower pump prices.

The Democrats and their standard bearer, Barack Obama, talk a lot about change, but it seems Republicans have the political courage to change in the face of strategic necessity."

Meanwhile, back at Cone's, plenty of evidence exists that many of the Usual Suspects either don't get it, or refuse to get it.

Professor Wharton gets it, though:

"We're going to be using oil for a while yet, and I'd rather us be using our own rather than the Saudis' and Hugo Chavez's while we're breaking the habit. Every little bit helps, and that includes ANWR in my book, as well as oil shale."

The Cone Project: Evaluating the NC November election races

Our buddy Ed has certain pet Dems for whom he actively beats his forlorn political drum on his blog. Kay Hagen and Larry Kissell come easily to mind in this group.

So let's see now:

Dole is up by 10 points.

And, in NC 8's Hayes-Kissell rematch, Ed links to an "internal" poll from Anzalone Liszt which says that Kissell leads.

Gee, Ed.......could this be the same Anzalone Liszt who told us that Kissell was "pulling away" in '06?

Nah, must just be a coincidence, right?

Note to Cone: As I would advise you regarding just about every other topic you write about, don't give up your day job trying to make a living as a political pundit.

Ummmm.......you DO have a day job, don't you?

800 billion barrels of oil are waiting

The cache is three times larger than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Available domestically.

On federal land.

"...enough to meet U.S. demand for oil at current levels for 110 years."

Let's get started on this, and on other projects that will ease our dependence on foreign oil, and lower our oil costs NOW.

Excerpt:

"The reality is, should Congress overturn its offshore-drilling moratorium, those very same speculators are gonna start selling crude-oil futures contracts and price declines will filter backwards from the longer-term contracts to the cash market. In other words, what can be bought will be sold. If drilling expectations change on the hope that future oil supplies will rise, prices will adjust lower and it will happen fast. "

Do you STILL think Social Security and Medicare can get by with just a "tweak"?

Think again.

Noteworthy:

"Thus, to cover such spending increases, total income taxes as a portion of GDP would have to increase 54% from today's levels by 2030, and 91% by 2050."

....and:

"So what are our Democratic and Republican politicians making their big political-economic issues of the election season? Gas tax holidays ... more tax cuts ... expanding medical entitlements to be 'for all' with no tax increase to pay for it on any income under $200,000..."

Expect the usual political pandering to continue, mostly from the Demagogue Democrat wing of the Democrat Party, supported by Usual Suspects everywhere.

Remember, the Usual Suspects are the ones who continue to bang the drum for universal health care, and to "fix global warming", and they expect YOU to pay for it all, including the huge coming bill for the entitlements..

And to think, there will STILL be some well-intentioned folks who will actually vote for the Pander Politicians next November.

More on last week's disgraceful SCOTUS ruling

Beldar:

"The obvious and inevitable consequence of today's Supreme Court decision will be that terrorist killers presently in captivity, captured at the cost of American soldiers' lives and limbs, will be released instead of punished, and they will return to killing both Americans and others again."

...and:

"If Osama bin Laden, wearing no uniform, surrounded by children as human shields, and in mid-stroke while he's sawing the head off a captured American nurse, is captured by American soldiers tomorrow in Pakistan or Afghanistan, then his rights to use the federal writ of habeas corpus to guarantee him the protections afforded by the United States Constitution will be, so far as I can determine, indistinguishable from my own if I were arrested at my home by the Houston Police Department on a warrant for overdue parking tickets.

The Supreme Court has so ordered notwithstanding the fact that the people's lawful representatives — through statutes passed by their Congress, and signed into law by their president — had otherwise decreed."


Chief Justice Roberts:

"Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate.

The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation."


Justice Scalia:

"THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent, which I join, shows that the procedures prescribed by Congress in the Detainee Treatment Act provide the essential protections that habeas corpus guarantees; there has thus been no suspension of the writ, and no basis exists for judicial intervention beyond what the Act allows.

My problem with today’s opinion is more fundamental still: The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad; the Suspension Clause thus has no application, and the Court’s intervention in this military matter is entirely ultra vires [i.e., beyond the Supreme Court's own power]."

Beldar again:

"Make no mistake about it: This was a naked, arrogant power grab of wartime, war-fighting power by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. This is Anthony Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer doing their dead-level best — not to protect you and me from the terrorists, but to protect the terrorists — and to prevent Congress and the president from protecting you and me!"

....and:

"Our enemies will never defeat us. We have the power to defeat ourselves, however, and today's decision by the Supreme Court is a terrible, tragic step toward such a defeat.

What will you do in November? Will you help accelerate these judicial power-grabs? Or will you help reverse them?"


And yet we CONTINUE to read the Usual Suspects' babble, dribble, drool, and spew on this atrocity, evidenced here, as linked by (who else?) the King of the Usual Suspects, our pal Ed.

Krugman calls for more government regulation on food safety

"More government regulation" is Krugman's standard solution to virtually everything.

But as pointed out, Krugman is wrong.

As usual.

My favorite of the comments:

"Odd. Its almost like Krugman emphasizes scoring political points for causes he is sympathetic to over honest economics and journalistic integrity.

I am shocked because this is so uncharacteristic for him."

LOL!

Ya think?

The Marxist concept of "class struggle" is at the center of the Left's climate alarmism

And the intended result of this alarmisim is the grandaddy of ALL wealth re-distribution scams our Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" pals have ever schemed up.

Noteworthy:

"Through carbon trading, taxes, mandatory 'clean energy' technology transfers, and other austere regulations, proposed UN-controlled international climate treaties to succeed Kyoto would penalize wealthy, innovative, capitalist countries while subsidizing poorer nations with waivers and foreign aid. And with most 'good governance' requirements for beneficiary nations lifted, this equates to coerced underwriting of military regimes, dictatorships and, of course, socialists."

"Peer Review"

Here's a comment showing showing just how important it is in matters like this, and in proving with absolute certainty things like, say, the "scientific consensus" on "anthropogenic global warming".

More on Obama and the "Scrap the Cap" movement

Oh, what the heck. It's we just need to contribute "a little bit more", right?

Yes we can!

Excerpt from the linked WSJ article:

"Mr. Obama's modest improvements to Social Security's financing come at a steep cost. The top marginal federal tax rates would effectively increase to 50.3% from 37.9%, equivalent to repealing the Bush income tax cuts almost three times over."

No big deal if you've got Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"/Libthink agenda items to fulfill, is it?

The Cone Project for 6-12-08: Obama and the tax treatment of capital gains

Over at Cone's, a discussion of tax policies of the two presumptive presidential nominees has revealed several things.

First, most of the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"/Libthink /Alternately Clued crowd obviously does not understand why capital gains tax and ordinary income tax deserve different treatment. Here's a prime example.


Second, our pal Ed should know (or refuses to acknowledge) Obama's 28% figure for capital gains.

Third, none of the Obama cheerleaders/apologists have acknowledged Obama's HUGE proposed payroll tax increase by eliminating the income cap for Social Security taxes. It's the scheme he proposed before recent back-pedaling, but sure to find its way back into the deal should he fool enough people into voting for him in November.

Noteworthy excerpt from the Cato link:

"This reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with an economics professor from an Ivy League university. He told me that he once asked his left-wing colleagues whether they would support lower tax rates if they knew that tax revenues would rise. Most of them, he said, shared Obama’s viewpoint that punishing success was more important to the statist ideology than increasing revenue for government."

Regarding today's Supreme Court decision

Laura Ingraham:

"In a major defeat to America and the War on Terror, the Supreme Court this morning ruled that enemies captured on the battlefield have habeas corpus rights under the U.S. Constitution. It is almost impossible to explain just how damaging this decision is, though we get an idea when Justice Scalia notes in his dissent that the ruling 'will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.' That outcome, he says, might be tolerable if the Court were upholding longstanding legal precedent. Instead it's a stark reversal of precedent that opens this country up to new security threats.

For example: There currently are no rules for trying enemy combatants in American courtrooms -- that will be left up to the courts themselves. (The Court did insist on defendants having access to witnesses; does that mean U.S. soldiers serving in the field?) Assuming defendants receive legal protections on par with U.S. citizens, terrorists will be able to easily manipulate our court system for access to classified government intel. Scalia notes that when the terrorists behind the first World Trade Center attack were tried, federal prosecutors produced the names of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, and 'that information was in the hands of Osama bin Laden within two weeks.'

Insanely, the military tribunals that were today declared unconstitutional were set up by Congress and the White House at the direction of an earlier SCOTUS ruling. 'Turns out they were just kidding,' Scalia notes wryly.

It also turns out the Constitution's a suicide pact after all."

Preparing for an Obama presidency

(hat tip: Jaycee)

And before the whining starts, let's take a look at Barry O's public record on this subject.

It looks like the economists gathered at the Copenahgen conference have found "consensus"

....in their quest to decide how best to serve the people of the world in spending 75 million over the next twenty years.

Guess what?

Wasting money on the farcial and non-existent "crisis" known as "anthropogenic global warming" was judged the LEAST valuable of actions that were considered.

Key points:

"What would do the most good most economically? Supplements of vitamin A and zinc for malnourished children.

Number two? A successful outcome to the Doha Round of global free-trade talks. (Someone please tell Barack Obama.)

Global warming mitigation? It ranked 30th, or last, right behind global warming mitigation research and development."

...and:


"But it's also instructive that the rich world's political cause du jour, global warming, fell well down the list. Research into low-carbon energy technologies, at No. 14, was the only climate-related proposal to reach even the middle of the priority list.

As Mr. Lomborg recently explained, the costs of mitigating climate change would be enormous for what are highly speculative benefits. He prefers research on new technologies, rather than a global cap-and-trade regime that would raise energy prices and thus reduce overall economic growth. Meanwhile, societies that are wealthier due to free trade will be better able to cope with the consequences of warming, if it occurs."

Cue the knee-jerk True Believers' responses......

Thinking about the impact of Barack The Redeemer

Jonah Goldberg fisks the would-be Messiah.

Noteworthy:

"And then there’s the Gospel according to Obama himself. In January, he told Dartmouth students that they will know to vote for him because '...a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.'

When asked in an interview what sin is, Obama defined it as 'Being out of alignment with my values.' Apparently, the editor failed to capitalize the 'M' in 'My.'"

Hat tip: Ticker

"Even if you want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, it’s hard to give him the benefit of the facts"

Jonah Goldberg tells us why.

Noteworthy:


"Just as it never occurred to him that his pastor would be an albatross in a national election, it never dawned on him that he should take a stance other than the one expected of anyone on the far Left of the Democratic Party, never mind on the far Left of the Chicago Democratic machine."

....and:

"McCain was challenging Bush when Obama was assuring voters there wasn’t 'much difference' between his position and Bush’s. And now Obama is locked into a position despite the facts on the ground. Obama may indeed have great judgment, but his record shows little experience employing it."

That doesn't include all of Barry O's bad judgment in just about every other aspect of every thing we judge a candidate for president.

The excuses, rationalizations, and the outright lies are already beginning

.....by the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"/Libthink/Lame Stream/Nutroot apologists over the possibility of an Obama loss in November.

We're all racists.

Cohen wrote it.....he believes it........that settles it in his eyes, and in the eyes of all those too blind to see.

Why Obama's religious history matters

He hasn't "left" anything.

Excerpts:

"The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks."


"Obama seems to be holding up people like Wright, Pfleger, and James Meeks (who he has listed as his key religious allies) as positive models for the wider black church — in both their rhetoric, and in their willingness to play a direct political role. If anything, Obama would like to see the political visions of Wright and Pfleger given greater weight and substance by connecting them to secular leftist political networks like Acorn."

"Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn’t want Trinity’s political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials."

"Malanga ends his account by noting that religious-left activists often partner with groups like MoveOn.org and attend gatherings featuring speakers like Michael Moore. After the 2004 election, there was some talk of the Democratic party “purging” MoveOn and Moore. Far from purging its radical Left, however, the Democratic party is now just inches away from placing it in the driver’s seat."

The lame streamers and their willing Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"/Nutroot/Libthink alliance have covered for this guy for too long.

It won't last.