Obama’s Monumental, Game Changing, Afghan Speech

30 11 2009

Anyone think I went a little over-board with the headline? 😉 

Maybe it will get funnier when he announces that the British are sending an additional 500 soldiers. Wow, 500 more cooks and mechanics should end the war within a few days of their arrival!

The very first paragraph is one of those classic “No Shit Sherlock” moments. I have a young teenage granddaughter that could have written that paragraph, when she was seven!


Analysts: Obama’s Afghanistan speech crucial

CNN International – ‎1 hour ago‎ (CNN) — US President Barack Obama has waited too long to address the instability in Afghanistan, putting at risk the efforts to stabilize the troubled country, a pair of authors said Monday.

Complete story here.

Info Update

30 11 2009

Just received about 20 minutes ago. Please read and consider carefully what’s covered in this email. These are the same people that sponsored the ‘Conservative Activist’ training I attended here in Asheville recently.



Dear Giovanni,

In 9 days President Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen, Denmark for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.  No doubt, the President intends to commit the United States to an energy rationing scheme that makes the U.S. accountable to U.N. bureaucrats, kills jobs here, dramatically raises the price of gasoline and electricity, and infringes on our personal and national freedoms — all in the name of a radical global warming ideology that is called into question more and more each day.

As part of our ongoing “Cost of Hot Air” effort, Americans for Prosperity is going to Copenhagen on the same day as the President to make sure that our side of the story is told.

On December 9, AFP will hold a live event from Copenhagen that will broadcast simultaneously at local AFP events across the nation and live at AmericanForProsperity.org. We’ll detail the hypocrisy of the U.N. Climate Change Conference and give you the opportunity to send your elected officials a crystal clear message: don’t you dare use this U.N. Conference to turn over our nation’s energy policy to some international body that could care less about American prosperity. 

Phil Kerpen and I will be in Copenhagen hosting an event with Lord Monckton (click here to join the 3.5 million people who have seen his video detailing how our nation could be threatened by international climate agreements) and other European free-market leaders who will detail the hypocrisy of this U.N. conference and explain how cap-and-trade has killed jobs and raised energy prices in their nations.

The anchor event in the United States will be held in Philadelphia at noon that day with AFP’s own Steven Lonegan hosting and special guest speaker Steve Moore (FOX News contributor and Wall Street Journal editorial board writer).   We’ll have more details about these events — and how you can attend — within the next few days.

I’m asking you to take 3 steps.

First, let us know you will consider attending one of the FREE “Cost of Hot Air” events near you on December 9, where we’ll have the Copenhagen event running live along with local speakers.  CLICK HERE 

Second, if you cannot attend one of the events, view it live at our AmericansforProsperity.org website or better yet, hold your own get-together for family and friends.  CLICK HERE to do this. 

Third, please consider sending this email invitation on to your family and friends by CLICKING here.  We need to make sure the politicians in Washington know that Americans are closely watching the cap-and-trade issue and that the U.N. Conference in Copenhagen changes absolutely nothing.

More Bad News For Obama

30 11 2009

As someone who thinks we are not taking the radical Islamic terrorist threat serious enough, this article has it’s Hot and Cold spots for me.

On the one hand we have this guy (Mr. Ajami) that changed his mind and he now thinks bad thoughts about Obama. Yeah-baby, two thumbs-up!

But on the other hand, we have this Arab guy (Mr. Ajami) who thinks the USA has a president that bends over backwards more-than-enough for the Arab worlds tastes. Obama may like bending over to foreigners but not this American (yours truly). Plus, we real Americans know instinctively that bending over too far, for that bar of soap in the prison showers, will cause a lot more pain than you ever imagined.


The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama

‘He talks too much,” a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America’s 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.

He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.

He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not “unclenched their fist,” nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.

There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can’t journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can’t journey to Cairo to tell the fabled “Arab street” that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can’t tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.

It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America’s decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.

Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn’t seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that’s reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.

Mr. Obama’s election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.

We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.

Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one’s own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.

The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. “My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger,” goes one of the Arab world’s most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.

Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with “the people” and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to “engage” the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.

On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: “Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them,” they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to “engage” Tehran’s murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn’t one of American diplomacy’s finest moments.

Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor’s war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.

He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. “Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan,” he said. “It’s not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts.”

Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many “peace plans” that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.

The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.


The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.

Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is the author of “The Foreigner’s Gift” (Free Press, 2007).

UN Climate Body in Deep Denial

30 11 2009

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC

Seriously, would you trust this man? I wouldn’t buy a used car from him. He’s Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s powerful Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)!

Pachauri is in deep denial, insisting that the integrity of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not affected in the least by the thousands of hacked e-mails from a major climate research institute, U. of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), which have exposed AGW research as questionable and unscientific.

At this point, I don’t know what it’ll take for these AGW frauds to back off. The only route is the legal one of lawsuits. A leading AGW skeptic named David Holland is doing just that. He’s seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws. Alas, the crazies are meeting in Copenhagen next week, before Holland has even begun suing these frauds.




By James Randerson – Nov 29, 2009 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

The emails were made public this month after a hacker illegally obtained them from servers at the university.

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

“Every single comment that an expert reviewer provides has to be answered either by acceptance of the comment, or if it is not accepted, the reasons have to be clearly specified. So I think it is a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which insures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening.”

The IPCC, which was set up by the UN in 1988, is the world’s leading authority on climate change. It advises governments on the science behind the problem and was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore in 2007.

Pachauri was responding to one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: “I can’t see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists’ intended actions, but said: “I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors’ meeting then there are others who would chew him up.”

Jones has denied any suggestion that he tried to suppress scientific evidence he disagreed with or that he manipulated data.

Some commentators, including the former chancellor Nigel Lawson and the environmental campaigner and Guardian writer George Monbiot, have called on Jones to resign but Pachauri said he did not agree. He said an independent inquiry into the emails would achieve little, but there should be a criminal investigation into how the emails came to light.

Pachauri said he doubted that trust in the IPCC would be damaged by the affair. “People who are aware of how the IPCC functions and are appreciative of the credibility that the IPCC has attained will probably not be swayed by an incident of this kind,” he said.

He pointed out that five days after the emails were made public, Barack Obama announced a major commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen.

C’mon Sing Along W/Lloyd Marcus

30 11 2009

Let’s Destroy Sarah Palin

30 11 2009

There seems to be some sort of scramble to see who can be the one that brings down Sarah Palin. What the hell is wrong with these people?

What will they end up calling this one… BusGate?

Don’t worry Sarah, we the people got your back!


Sarah Palin Flying During “Bus Tour” for Book?

Former GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who has been emerging from a bus emblazoned with her name and photograph during her publicity tour for her memoir “Going Rogue,” may be flying between her promotional appearances.

A blog called “Palingates,” citing the flight log, first reported that Palin has apparently been traveling on a Gulfstream II 12-passenger jet from stop to stop.

Joe McGinniss at the Huffington Post then picked up the story. Before the tour, Palin’s publicist had claimed that Palin would be “making two and sometimes three stops a day, traveling in a bus painted with the cover of her book.” The former Alaska governor also gave interviews from the bus, driving home the notion that it was her mode of transportation for the tour.

But flight logs show that the Gulfstream jet, which costs $4,000 per hour, has been flown from stop to stop on the book tour, prompting McGinniss to speculate that she “hasn’t been on the bus, except for short hops between local airports and hotels and book-signing sites.”

HarperCollins did not respond to questions about who was paying for the jet or who flies on it. But Palin has acknowledged flying during at least some portion of the trip, tweeting that she “Just got off flt” on November 21st.

Cheney-Limbaugh 2012

30 11 2009

Look people, I know this won’t happen but it sure is fun and somehow comforting to dream about.


Cheney, Limbaugh in 2012?

By Tom Hintgen (Contact) | The Daily Journal

Published Monday, November 30, 2009

Many conservatives believe that Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh have all the answers to solve our nation’s problems. Could that team head the GOP banner in 2012?

“If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh,” said Cheney on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

This led to immediate speculation that Cheney and Limbaugh intend to run as a ticket in the 2012 election. Limbaugh, on his weekday radio show, often calls Barack Obama “a man-child president who is immature, inexperienced, and over his head.”

A Cheney-Limbaugh ticket would be a conservative’s dream, said conservative analyst Mary Matalin, but she said, “I don’t believe Cheney will run for president, nor will Limbaugh.”

As for Limbaugh’s daily criticism of Obama, White House senior adviser David Axelrod said, “It’s a surreal day when you’re getting lectures from Rush Limbaugh. He (Limbaugh) is an entertainer.”

The White House has suggested that Limbaugh and some other far-right political personalities have grabbed control of the Republican Party. Limbaugh has openly vowed to do what he can to ensure that Obama’s presidency is a failure.

“I don’t know how good a Cheney-Limbaugh ticket would truly be or how happy I’d be with them over the long term. However, I’d take them in a heartbeat, from a national security perspective, over that fraud in the White House. Man, would I like to have a recall election (a la Gov. Grey Davis in California) right about now,” said one conservative talk show radio caller.

Limbaugh and Sean Hannity remain way ahead of the field in their two-horse race for the most conservative talk-radio listeners, according to the trade magazine “Talkers.” Limbaugh has a minimum of 14.75 million listeners who tune in at least once a week. Hannity is second with a minimum of 13.75 million.

Our Hintgen family prefers to listen to Minnesota Public Radio, for which we are contributing members.

Limbaugh said he loves being a conservative, adding, “We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security.”

He said true conservatives also support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the War on Terrorism.

“And at our core, said Limbaugh, “we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation — the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it’s the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.”

Limbaugh asserts that African-Americans, in contrast with other minority groups, are “left behind” socially because they’ve been systematically trained from a young age to hate America through a widespread movement headed by figures such as Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Obama.

Many people believe that Limbaugh not only has no compassion for those in need, but that he’s also mean-spirited.

During the Clinton administration, while filming his television program, Limbaugh referred to media coverage of Socks, the Clintons’ cat. He then said, “Did you know there’s a White House dog?” and held up to the camera a picture of then-teenaged Chelsea Clinton.

Responding to the ensuing criticism, Limbaugh claimed he was handed the photo by mistake. Later, he mocked the shortness of U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich who’s about 5 feet tall.

Democrats say that Limbaugh uses his platform to become national precinct chairman for the Republican party. Right or wrong, millions of Americans love Limbaugh, and he earns millions of dollars each year through conservative talk radio.

Would Cheney and Limbaugh, if elected, tap Sarah Palin for a Cabinet post?