OLYMPIC INDIFFERENCE

If my very life depended on the level of interest I have in the Olympic Games, my epitaph would have already been written, and my wife would have already sold all of my baseball collectibles.

That’s not to say that when the games are actually taking place I don’t root for the United States.

I do.

Without equivocation, I want the United States to pound any and all competitors into a fine, unrecognizable paste. In fact, during any given Olympiad, I may actually take a few moments to sit down in the living room – perhaps when my toe nails need a touch of trimming, or if I’m trying to tame some particularly gnawing abdominal pains – and catch an event or two.

Still, if the games were to suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth – not unlike my wish for the United Nations (or better yet, America’s involvement with it) – there isn’t a device in all of God’s creation that could measure the sleep I would not be losing over it.

Now that the President of the United States – the-Prioritzer-In-Chief – will be personally lobbying to have the 2016 Summer Olympic Games brought to the Hog Butcher of Political Corruption, Chicago, (while time-consuming distractions like the War in Afghanistan, and the rise of a nuclear Iran take a back seat), I was quite surprised to see that nearly half of Chicagoland residents are actually against it.

Don Babwin of the Associated Press writes:

The mayor, the president and Oprah Winfrey may hope to return to Chicago from Copenhagen with the 2016 Olympic Games, but some around town hope the International Olympic Committee deems the Second City the second city.

As in second to Rio de Janeiro. Or Tokyo. Or Madrid.

…

“I know it’s going to cost us money somehow,” said Joseph Patrick, a 51-year-old stay-at-home dad. “The government doesn’t have a job (so) the only place they can get money is from us.”

A new Web site — Chicagoansforrio.com — is the talk of the town and features the game “Match the Olympic host with its estimated budget overrun.” About 170 protesters marched outside City Hall on Tuesday night, many insisting that no matter what organizers say, the games will push people from their homes, lead to more corruption and raise taxes.

Rising taxes in Chicago? Corruption in the city of Mrs. O’Leary’s cow?

Go figure.

As it urns out, a Chicago Tribune poll shows that 45% of Chicagolanders would rather not see the games come there, compared to 47% who would.

In other news, President Obama today met with General Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, for only the second time in seventy days. It was their first meeting since the general requested up to 40,000 more troops in August.

Obama is expected to make a decision before the turn of the next century.

Maybe.

–

MORALITY’S EXPIRATION DATE

For the sake of argument, let’s say a high-profile conservative talk show host was embroiled in a sex scandal involving an underage girl. Specifically, let’s pretend that Rush Limbaugh was the talk show host in question, and the underage girl was thirteen years old. In our hypothetical scenario, let’s make believe that Mr. Limbaugh, responding to a fan letter, made a promise to an aspiring thirteen year old broadcaster – a ninth-grader – that he would fly her to his studio in Florida and put her on his radio show. Let’s say he contacted the excited girls’ parents about the plan, and they agreed.

The thrill of a lifetime, right?

Now let’s say that during her visit, Mr. Limbaugh got the young girl drunk, fed her drugs and sodomized her.

Let us all try to imagine the absolute firestorm that would inculcate every free molecule of print, airwave and bandwidth of the mainstream media and beyond. Let us all try to envision and comprehend the totality of not only the expansive media coverage of such a disgusting thing, but the sheer outrage that would blanket and dominate the national dialogue.

Everyone from the uninteresting and self-absorbed Keith Olbermann to thinker-extraordinaire Whoopie Goldberg would be calling for the head of Mr. Limbaugh on any platter. Unbridled indignation would sweep across the nation faster than a college kid can mutter “Dude.” There would be nonstop coverage of Limbaugh the Rapist on every news channel, website, blog, and checkout-stand tabloid. Limbaugh’s reputation would be instantly obliterated, and his career would be over – and rightly so.

But here’s the real question … Could anyone ever envision a time when the public’s outrage of Limbaugh’s crime would ever diminish, especially given the fact that he is an outspoken, unapologetic conservative?

Not likely.

Let us assume that Limbaugh went to jail for the crime, lost everything he had, served his time, and eventually attempted a comeback of some sort down the road. Would he ever be able to shake the tag of child rapist?

Wouldn’t it follow him everywhere for the rest of his natural life?

“Former talk show host and convicted child rapist, Rush Limbaugh …”

“Conservative child rapist Rush Limbaugh …”

After all, despite overcoming his drug addiction to Oxycontin years ago – an accomplishment normally lauded by the Left – Rush is still blasted as an addict by the likes of the tactless and unfunny Congressman Barney Frank, the gay brothel’s best friend.

What I’m really asking is … Does the rape become less terrible with time? Does any rape?

The answer seems obvious, but perhaps the reality of the answer depends on who is committing the rape and who is being asked the question.

Thus, let us remove Rush Limbaugh from the discussion and instead insert celebrated film maker Roman Polanski.

What has changed?

Polanski - film maker, rapist

For one, we move from the hypothetical to the real. Polanski actually did drug a young thirteen year-old gal before raping her.

Second, while Limbaugh (like Polanski) is a celebrity, Limbaugh is not widely admired or held in awe by the most influencial forces of popular culture. To those who control the “drive-by media,” Polanski is seen as flawed, but still eminent and significant.

Limbaugh is simply a hater and a divider.

And so it was that 76-year-old Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland on Saturday – more than thirty years after the fact.

And as expected, the star-studded, morally-bereft Left is rallying to his cause – primarily because of his “brilliance” as a director and the fact that the crime took place more than three decades ago.

From Harrison Ford to Debra Winger, from Woody Allen to Martin Scorsese, the “Free Roman” cheers are filling the air.

Morality, apparently, has an expiration date if you’re left of center.

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post exemplifies this attitude perfectly:

There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision (to arrest Polanski in Switzerland) was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

So, in other words, because it happened so long ago, and because the crime is not nearly the emotional lightning rod it was in the 1970s, the desire to administer justice all of these years later must fall within the realm of the bizarre. (Accordingly, Applebaum effectively places blame with “a U.S. judge” for bothering to keep this old annoyance alive – not with the rapist).

What if the fugitive rapist was not an artistically influential pop-culture icon? What if it was someone on the decidely conservative side of the cultural or political spectrum – Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, Sean Hannity, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, William Buckley, or anyone not revered for his soul-touching artistry and ground-breaking creativity?

Would Applebaum come to his defense, too?

She continues:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment.

Actually, Polanski can be blamed for drugging and raping a child.

The fact that Polanski survived the Krakow ghetto during World War II (while his mother was murdered at Auschwitz) has absolutely nothing to do with his raping of a thirteen year old girl in 1977, and should not, by any moral standard, play a role in whether or not Polanski should pay for his crime. Additionally, the fact that his wife and unborn child were murdered in 1969 by the Charles Manson family, while profoundly tragic, is irrelevant to this case. Indeed, as Applebaum points out, Polanski was a suspect for a short period of time in Sharon Tate’s murder – a factor that coupled with his experience at Krakow, according to Applebaum, contributed to Polanski’s “fear of irrational punishment.” But so what?

What on earth does that have to do with his contemptible treatment of a thirteen year old girl?

And yet, the growing sentiment is: Poor, poor Roman Polanski.

Cries of outrage at Polanski’s arrest are coming in from all corners of the globe.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said, “A man whose talent is recognized around the world, recognized especially in the country that arrested him, that’s not nice. This story, frankly, is a little sinister.”

Talent?

This is now the criterion for whether or not a man should be punished for a detestable crime?

“Not nice?”

Would the French Foreign Minister feel the same if it were his thirteen year old daughter having her senses numbed by alcohol and quaaludes at the hands of a horny 44-year old pervert before being violated? Would Polanski’s “recognized talent” amount to a hill of beans to Kouchner if it was his child who was being penetrated, both vaginally and anally, by a man more than 30 years her senior?

If I may ask him directly … How exactly do you define “sinister,” Mr. Kouchner?

This is the crux of my article today and where much of my distaste rests – that Polanski’s standing as an artist somehow has any bearing on whether or not what he did should be subject to any further punishment.

From the Globe and Mail Online:

Frédéric Mitterrand, the Minister of Culture, went further. He called the rape case “an old story” and said he was stupefied that Mr. Polanski would still be pursued.

“There is an America that we love,” he said. “There is also a certain America that scares us.”

International leftists love America when it is more like Europe, i.e. weak and unwilling to stand up against evil. The fact that America values goodness and liberty more than how many vacation days one has on the books, like the French do, scares them.

Again, note how Mitterrand refers to the Polanski case as “an old story,” not worthy of pursuit all of these years later. Clearly, as alluded to earlier, the crime’s severity seems to be directly proportional to the talent of the criminal and the amount of time that has passed since the crime.

Yet another factor that cannot be overlooked is whether or not the crime was perpetrated on a human.

Leftists seem to save their most bombastic displays of outrage for crimes against animals – or the execution of convicted first-degree murderers.

Vick - quarterback, dog killer

NFL Quarterback Michael Vick will forever be branded a cruel, despicable human being unworthy of forgiveness because of what he did to dogs. Indeed, his actions were deplorable, but when other athletes have actually been involved in the death of humans, outcry has been minimal, at best.

To many, Vick is evil personified.

Roman Polanski, on the other hand, has directed such cinematic classics as Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown. He’s a supremely talented and highly respected movie maker. His crime was committed against a thirteen year old girl over thirty years ago – something he’s certainly sorry for.

It’s time for all of us to get over it and move on.

Besides, the girl who was raped is doing just fine today.

Producer Harvey Weinstein said he would try to mobilize the movie business to support the petition drive so that Mr. Polanski would not be forced to return to court. Mr. Weinstein reportedly owns the international rights to an HBO documentary that was broadcast last year and contends that Mr. Polanski did not get a fair trial in 1978.

And Polanski was in Krakow, and his wife was slaughtered by Manson, blah, blah, blah …

Please understand, I am not diminishing the brutality of the Manson murders. Each of those examples of human debris who participated in those killings should have long ago been executed.

And I am certainly not diminishing the horrors of the Holocaust.

Rather, I chide those who rally around a child rapist who has, for three decades, escaped the justice that he must rightfully face in some form, regardless of his age, the time between the crime and his arrest, and his talent for film making.

Ticks of a clock do not lessen the ruthlessness of what he did to that little girl.

With all of that said, it is necessary that I acknowledge the fact that a legitimate argument can be made that the amount of law enforcement resources it would take to have Polanski extradited, along with what would almost certainly be a long, drawn-out, costly re-trail, is not the wisest or most efficient use of money and energy. A case can certainly be made that Polanski poses absolutely no threat to anyone. I am willing to concede that point as well. Even the young women who was raped by Polanski has said that she forgives him and wishes Polanski would be able to return to the United States.

For those not aware, Polanski actually served 42 days at Chino State Prison in California where he underwent a psychiatric observation period. Initially convinced that he would ultimately only get parole for what he did, Polanski fled the United States when prison and deportment became a very real possibility.

He remained a fugitive until Saturday. He was taken into custody while on his way to the Zurich Film Festival, which is actually holding a tribute to him this year.

Actress Deborah Winger epitomized the raging amorality – and sick irony – that is rampant among Hollywood elites when she reacted to Polanski’s arrest, saying, “The festival has been unfairly exploited.”

The festival.

Still, the questions loom … Is justice to be set aside because of how long ago the crime took place? Or because of the financial burden of bringing him back to the United States to face charges? Or because he has (in the eyes of some) already “paid” for his crimes in ways more tangible than mere jail time?

And as the morally weak of the world continue to come to the defense of Polanski, one of my favorite mottos is given more credence: “Whatever world opinion is on any given subject, go with the opposite.”

Kudos to the Swiss, incidentally.

–

TUESDAY MORNING OBAMA RUNDOWN

From the “Warm And Fuzzy” file …

Now that a new secret underground nuclear processing plant in Iran has been made public, is there a better way for that nation to follow up such a hair-raising revelation than with some good old-fashioned, feel-good long-range missile tests?

And is there anything quite as comforting in knowing that these missiles, according to Iran, are capable of reaching any location they feel may pose a threat to that country, including Israel, significant portions of Europe, and some American military installations?

And better still, doesn’t it just make you go all goose-pimply knowing that the President of the United States recently put the kibosh on a missile defense shield that would have been able to take care of these missiles?

Am I the only one hearing Katrina and the Waves sing, “…And don’t it feel good?”

Wait.

There’s more.

Along with the reality that our President is not interested in victory when it comes to Iran, by now you’re surely aware that General Stanley McChrystal, Commander of American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is saying that he has spoken to Barack Obama, Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, only once since being put in charge over the summer.

Only once in a little over two months!

Disturbing.

How about that for instilling confidence?

Recall that Afghanistan, according to Obama himself, is the central front in America’s “Overseas Contingency Operation” – or at least it was, as of not too long ago.

Maybe – and this is a big maybe – the President can find the time to actually consult with the Commander of American Forces in Afghanistan before he returns from Copenhagen on his “Let’s Bring The Olympics Home To Chicago” tour.

Maybe an instant message before he finishes his waffle?

Priorities, Bam.

Sing it Katrina … Don’t it feel good?

–

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

A little Mao in the Apple

From the “I’m Sorry, I Must Be Missing Something File” file …

Tomorrow, you best make sure you have your noise-makers handy, and if at all possible, get yourself a huge slice of birthday cake.

Party hats and streamers may seem a bit over the top, but who cares?

It’s a once in a lifetime event.

Remember, a little excess is okay now and then – especially when celebrating the anniversary of a communist nation.

So, go ahead, put on your dancing shoes, grab some punch, get your cameras ready, and be sure to look up at the Empire State Building tomorrow, because the tallest building in New York City will be lit up in red and yellow to commemorate the 60th birthday of Red China!

Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you ….

From the AFP:

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

The upper sections of the building are regularly illuminated to mark special occasions, ranging from all blue to mark “Old Blue Eyes” Frank Sinatra’s death in 1998 to green for the annual Saint Patrick’s Day.

Just last week the tower turned bright red.

However, that was not to mark some other communist achievement, but the 70th anniversary of the film “The Wizard of Oz” in which Dorothy wears ruby slippers rather than the silver of the original L. Frank Baum novel.

What better use of one of the world’s most recognizable structures, which oddly enough sits in the heart of Capitalist New York, than to honor a nation that killed tens of millions of its own people?

I can’t think of one.

Now that’s a “special occasion!”

Perhaps the Empire State Building will someday illuminate its upper portion in a charcoal grey light to commemorate and represent the rotting corpses of the dead of communist China.

While they’re at it, why not use a black light of some sort to pay tribute to the Islamo-Nazi terrorists in black hoods who slice the throats of innocents?

Wasn’t Saddam Hussein’s favorite color blue? How about a nice deep cyan to show him a little posthumous love as well?

I’m a little lost as to what color can be used to honor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I’ll have to think about that.

–

VICTORY? WHAT?

There is no need for in-depth analysis here.

There is nothing that necessitates a detailed breakdown by anyone in the punditocracy.

In this case, the President of the United States is as clear as the san-serif font on his teleprompters. In fact, unlike the text that scrolls across the face of his electronic cue-cards, his words, in this instance, are not empty or vapid. Dare I say it … there is not a stitch of ambiguity in what the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces is saying.

With the recent revalation that the nation of Iran has kept a secret nuclear plant hidden from UN inspectors for many moons, Barack Obama has taken a page from the I’m-A-Lover-Not-A-Fighter songbook and made it clear that he is not looking for, nor does he want, victory against Iran.

I actually had to pause to allow that concept to sufficiently sink in.

Victory is not what the current Iranian crisis is about, according the President of the United States.

(Think about that for a moment).

The President did not imply it or indirectly suggest that victory wasn’t his aim – he actually came right out and said it, in those very words.

He is “not interested in victory.”

Just like that.

It can hardly be misinterpreted.

If there are words more gutless, more disgusting, that one can hear come out of the mouth of the President of the United States (other than “I Barack Obama, do solemnly swear ….), I’d like to know what they are.

Here was the brief exchange between The One and a reporter:

REPORTER: You just mentioned sanctions that have bite. What kind of sanctions –and I know you can’t get into detail – but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran? Do you really think any kind of sanction would have an effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad?

Secondly, some of your advisors today said that this announcement was a “victory.” Do you consider it a victory? And if so, why didn’t you announce it earlier since you’ve known since you’re President-elect?

OBAMA: Uh … This isn’t a football game. So, I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem. The problem is that Iran repeatedly says that it is pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and its actions contradict its words. 

Stunned.

Or maybe I shouldn’t be.

Take another moment to let it sink in … The President of the United States of America – the most powerful man in the most powerful nation on Earth – has publicly asserted, in no uncertain terms, that he does not seek victory against a rogue nation whose government not only slaughters its own citizens on the streets, but openly backs terrorism, has called for the destruction of Israel, has a thug madman as its President, poses a genuine threat to its neighbors and the world oil supply, and is on the brink of having the capability of producing nuclear weapons.

Rather, he’s interested in resolving the problem – whatever that means.

Without victory.

What the hell is he talking about?

I haven’t the inclination or patience to try and parse the messiah’s words. Sometimes, taking things at face value is more than enough.

Let us hope that Obama’s interest in victory carries over to the election of 2012.

–

PICTURE OF THE DAY FOR SEPTEMBER 27, 2009

Priorities, man.

–

TWO-TIERED DISCIPLINE

From the folks who brought you such timeless classics as, “Race Doesn’t Matter” and “Let Us Judge By The Content Of One’s Character Rather Than The Color Of One’s Skin” comes the latest barrier-breaking, bigotry-busting, everyone-is-equal initiative – this time from the Tucson Arizona Unified School District. Taken directly out of the “Poor Baby, He’s Black And Cannot Read” file – which rests along side the “Poor Baby, He’s Spanish; No Wonder He’s In A Gang” file – is the latest and greatest guideline for student discipline to come along since the paddle.

In short, if one is either black (a racial designation) or Hispanic (a cultural designation), then his or her measure of discipline is likely going to be different from their Caucasian school mates. It is – to quote supporters – a restorative system.

The bottom line is … there will be one set of standards for blacks and Hispanics, and one for “everyone else.”

Drew Zahn of World Net daily writes:

Arizona Republic columnist Doug MacEachern drew attention to a decision made by the Tucson Unified School District’s board over the summer to adopt a “Post-Unitary Status Plan,” which includes the goal of reducing suspensions and expulsions of minority students to reflect “no ethnic/racial disparities.”

“TUSD principals and disciplinarians (assuming such creatures still exist) are being asked to set two standards of behavior for their students,” MacEachern commented. “Some behavior will be met with strict penalties; some will not. It all depends on the color of the student’s skin.”

MacEachern’s column quoted a section of the board’s 52-page plan titled “Restorative School Culture and Climate,” subhead, “Discipline”:

“School data that show disparities in suspension/expulsion rates will be examined in detail for root causes,” the new policy states. “Special attention will be dedicated to data regarding African-American and Hispanic students.”

The board also created an “Equity Team” to ensure “a commitment to social justice for all students.”

“The happy-face edu-speak notwithstanding, what the Tucson Unified School District board of governors has approved this summer is a race-based system of discipline,” MacEachern concluded. “Offenses by students will be judged, and penalties meted out, depending on the student’s hue.”

School officials, however, have both refuted MacEachern’s description of the policy as “two-tiered” and argued that the new guidelines will only help correct racial inequalities that already exist in the system.

An “Equity Team?”

Lord, help me.

If you are not shaking your head, check with your physician. Your hinge may be rusted.

What kind of socially destructive, race-obsessed, dangerous poppycock is this? Where on earth do these overpaid, hyper-sensitive, university-educated social relics with no real answers to real problems come up with these asinine ideas? How is it that people who are supposed to be serious adults, charged with the task of educating and molding our children into functioning members of a civil society, come up with such counterproductive, preposterous notions of how to deal with the so-called “inequities” that exist among students of different cultures and races? How in the world can anyone anywhere think this actually makes any kind of sense?

Above all, what message does this send to non-whites?

Try, “We’re not good enough to meet the standards of Caucasions, so it’s up to guilty whites with power to treat us extra special.”

Try, “I can get away with more because I do not meet – and can never exceed – the standards of people who are paler than I.”

The board’s report includes statistics that while American Indian students make up only 4 percent of the student body, they account for 20 percent of the suspensions across the district. And while black students only make up 7 percent of the student body, they account for 16.3 percent of out-of-school suspensions.
.

(TUSD Governing Board member Adelita) Grijalva also told the Star that administrators have had too much discretion over the years to give some kids a pass while throwing the book at others; and since the majority of teachers are white, they might not understand cultural differences.

“This will allow us to look at the situation with a bigger lens,” she said, “and I am 100 percent supportive of it.”

Think of the logic here …

If, for example, the majority of holdups in New York Cityare perpetrated by blacks, and if the definition of a holdup is changed to include only those heists that involve $200 or more, there will be – by definition – a sudden a drop in the number of black thieves. To leftists, the problem is thus solved. Everything is cool. The negative stigma has been removed. The heartless, compassionless, racially insensitive standard has been relaxed.

Keep in mind that the value set of the criminal that led to the thievery is never scrutinized. That would be judgemental.

Second, this gobbledygook about “cultural differences” is about as tiresome and idiotic as a Joe Biden lecture. What the hell does that really mean? Where exactly do these students come from? How is it that their cultural value sets are so different as to be so misunderstood by teachers who live in the same country as they? Are the vast majority of these students – whether they be black, Spanish, American-Indian, whatever – new to the United States? Or Western Civilization? Have they just been dropped off in America from Planet Zaytox without any sense of what is right and wrong?

Do liberals even bother to listen to the things they say?

Either theft is wrong or it is not. Either hitting another student when it is not in self-defense is wrong or it is not. Cheating is either acceptible or it is not.

Are these values unique only to White Americans? Is the effectiveness of punishment somehow synonymous with melanin levels in the skin? Or by one’s identification to his or her Spanish heritage?

Absolute mindless liberal crap.

As Michelle Malkin wrote on her blog:

I am sure Eric Holder and his racial preference-mongers (not to mention the “social justice” purveyors at Obama’s Department of Education) approve.

 Is there anything less progressive than being progressive?

– 

BUTT OUT

This is not exactly the type of news one likes to wake up to – and I’m willing to bet that except for tree-huggers and squiggly-light-bulb loving greenies, this will not go over particularly well.

You can bet your bottom dollar on that.

Or perhaps more appropriately stated, you can bet your bottom paper on that.

It’s a given among the sane-minded that hardcore environmentalists are a crazed if not consistently annoying bunch. More often than not, their hysterically sappy claims and over-the-top campaigns to save the planet from certain death can be laughed at before being dismissed entirely by those of us still on a first-name basis with our brains.

But there are those rare, notable occasions when even their mindless delirium treads on territory that one not dare joke about.

Some things are taboo.

There is much I can take from these whack-job environmentalists, but when they threaten to wage war on my fluffy, puffy, cushiony, multi-ply toilet paper, you can rest assured, I will not go down quietly.

It’s on.

No buts about that.

David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post writes:

There is a battle for America’s behinds.

It is a fight over toilet paper: the kind that is blanket-fluffy and getting fluffier so fast that manufacturers are running out of synonyms for “soft” (Quilted Northern Ultra Plush is the first big brand to go three-ply and three-adjective).

It’s a menace, environmental groups say — and a dark-comedy example of American excess.

The reason, they say, is that plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old. They want Americans, like Europeans, to wipe with tissue made from recycled paper goods.

It has been slow going. Big toilet-paper makers say that they’ve taken steps to become more Earth-friendly but that their customers still want the soft stuff, so they’re still selling it.

Let me be clear.

I do not want, nor do I accept, any manufacturer of plush, soft, multi-layered bathroom tissue becoming Earth-friendly. I know what that means (as do millions of others who need the security and comfort of plush cleaning materials): coarse, restaurant-grade, scratchy, skin-scraping, copy machine consistent paper.

Ouch, dammit.

I want – nay, demand – toilet paper that is as unfriendly to the Earth as it is friendly to the tush. I work hard. I’ve earned it. And despite what these bellyaching, scared-of-their-own-shadow doom-and-gloomers say, I’ve not hurt my planet one dollop by relying on the good stuff.

Toilet paper is far from being the biggest threat to the world’s forests: together with facial tissue, it accounts for 5 percent of the U.S. forest-products industry, according to industry figures. Paper and cardboard packaging makes up 26 percent of the industry, although more than half is made from recycled products. Newspapers account for 3 percent.

But environmentalists say 5 percent is still too much.

Felling these trees removes a valuable scrubber of carbon dioxide, they say. If the trees come from “farms” in places such as Brazil, Indonesia or the southeastern United States, natural forests are being displaced. If they come from Canada’s forested north — a major source of imported wood pulp — ecosystems valuable to bears, caribou and migratory birds are being damaged.

And, activists say, there’s just the foolish idea of the thing: old trees cut down for the briefest and most undignified of ends.

“It’s like the Hummer product for the paper industry,” said Allen Hershkowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We don’t need old-growth forests . . . to wipe our behinds.”

Ahh, I see. It comes down to whether or not they think we really need three-ply toilet paper to perform our hygenic tasks.

Who the hell do they think they are?

Hey greenies … butt out of our butts, okay?
–

A REAL LEADER

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

A tale of two speeches.

Yesterday at the United Nations, President Barack Obama – leader of the free world, Apologist-In-Chief – all but spit upon the notion of American exceptionalism with some of the most embarrassing, lily-livered, weak-kneed, touchy-feely palavar ever spoken by an American President while still in office. He stood up in front of the world, sounding more like the guest speaker at a “Get-In-Youch-With-Your-Inner-Self” encounter group and delivered hokey cliché after threadbare platitude, explaining to everyone (in that “I know better than everyone who preceded me” tone) that “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” He also managed to grab the necks of one of our closest allies, Israel, and drag them to the bus depot, lay them out on the exit ramp, and hold her down while bus after bus rolled over her.

Rich Lowry of the National Review said Obama came across as a “gullible sap.”

I was thinking more along the lines of a tenderfooted, bait-taking, mollycoddling sucker, but I acquiesce to Lowry’s superior wordsmanship.

Contrast Obama’s nerveless blather to today’s speech given by Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – dare I say, a real leader.

Said Netanyahu, in part, today:

For eight long years, Hamas fired rockets – fired those rockets from Gaza – on nearby Israeli citizens. Thousand of missiles, mortars, hurling down from the sky on schools, on homes, shopping centers, bus stops.

Year after year as these missiles were deliberately fired on our citizens, not one UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing, absolutely nothing, from the UN Human Rights Council – a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It was very painful. We dismantled 21 settlements – really bedroom communities and farms. We uprooted over eight thousand Israelis – yanked them out from their homes. We did this because many in Israel believed that this would get peace.

Well, we didn’t get peace.

Instead, we got an Iranian-backed terror base fifty miles from Tel-Aviv.

Life in the Israeli towns and cities immediately next to Gaza became nothing less than a nightmare.

You see, the Hamas rocket launchers, and the rocket attacks, not only continued after we left, they actually increased dramatically. They increased ten-fold.

And again, the UN was silent. Absolutely silent.

He went on to commend those nations who had the good sense to walk out on yesterday’s speech (if you wish to call it that) by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who again went on to deny the Holocaust, among his other abominable cacklings. 

But Netanyahu courageously and openly condemned the United Nations – in no uncertain terms – for allowing the despicable Iranian terrorist to be given the forum to espouse his hateful, destructive, threatening rhetoric in the first place.

Courage, indeed.

From Fox News:

Holding aloft evidence of Hitler’s Final Solution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday railed against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust and scolded the United Nations for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak during its opening session of the 64th U.N. General Assembly.

With detailed reminders in hand of the war that sent 6 million Jews to their deaths in concentration camps, including construction blueprints for Auschwitz, Netanyahu took his turn at the dais to recall the agreement within the world body to create the Jewish state and express astonishment at what he witnessed a day earlier in that organization’s great hall.

He commended those who boycotted Ahmadinejad’s speech, but condemned those who allowed it.

“To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. … Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also scolded the United Nations for giving the Iranian president “legitimacy” just six decades after the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad addressed the body Wednesday, and in the run-up to the session repeated his belief that the Holocaust is a myth.

“What a disgrace,” Netanyahu said. “What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations.”

Compare and contrast the words and sentiments of Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu.

Compare and contrast strength to acquiescence. Compare one who echoes the voices of Churchill and Reagan to one that echoes the sentiments of fragility and defeat. Compare one who understands that it is our moral obligation to stand between evil and the innocent to one who looks to level the playing field between the evil and innocent.

Bravo Benjamin Netanyahu – Prime Minister of a tiny little country that sits more alone today than it has in quite a while.

–

ONE-WAY STREET

Best buddies?

In case you hadn’t noticed, this is quite a President we have here.

Ever eager and willing to bend over backwards for thug dictators, terrorist appeasers and human rights violators, President of the World (and quite possibly the vast majority of the galaxy), Barack Obama, is equally exhilarated about thumbing America’s nose at longtime allies.

Some of America’s staunchest supporters and embracers of liberty are in Eastern Europe – particularly Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama’s decision to scrap the installation of critical missile defense shields in those two countries – which has incidentally pleased Russia to no end – isn’t exactly securing him any invites to (former Polish President) Lech Walesa’s house for supper and scrabble. Former Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said, “The Americans are not interested in this territory as they were before. It’s bad news for the Czech Republic.”

After all, if you can’t alienate your friends, who can you alienate?

Meanwhile, in Israel, the percentage of people who believe that President Obama is a friend to their nation is at 4% – that’s four bloody percent!

Compare that to 88% under President George W. Bush.

And now this little tidbit from Great Britain this morning.

David Hughes from the UK Telegraph writes this very important – and telling – piece:

The juxtaposition on our front page this morning is striking. We carry a photograph of Acting Sgt Michael Lockett – who was killed in Helmand on Monday – receiving the Military Cross from the Queen in June, 2008. He was the 217th British soldier to die in the Afghan conflict. Alongside the picture, we read that the Prime Minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure a few minutes “face time” with President Obama after five requests for a sit-down meeting were rejected by the White House.

What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America’s staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President’s graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it’s not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that’s not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact. You might have thought that after the shambles of Mr Brown’s first visit to the Obama White House – when there was no joint press conference and the President’s “gift” to the Prime Minister was a boxed DVD set – that lessons would have been learned. Apparently not. Admittedly, part of the problem was Downing Street’s over-anxiety to secure a face-to-face meeting for domestic political purposes but the White House should still have been more obliging. Mr Obama’s churlishness is fresh evidence that the US/UK special relationship is a one-way street.

Remember, liberals actually care what the rest of the world thinks about the United States … or should I say liberals care what our enemies and assorted international leftists think about the United States. (It’s crucial to keep in mind that the world does not look down upon this country, as Obama would have us believe. The world’s leftists look down upon the United States).

Perhaps if Gordon Brown ordered soldiers into civilian neighborhoods to slaughter innocents, President Obama would be more receptive to him. Perhaps if the Polish government ordered innocents to be rounded up and shot for speaking out against them, the President of the United States would be willing to work with them. Maybe if Israelis fired missiles into civilian territories and strapped bombs across their chests to blow up pizza parlors, Bam would make it his business to address their concerns.

While one can make the case that Obama’s “cold shoulder” is rooted in how Great Britain handled the releasing of a convicted terrorist to Libya earlier this month, let us all be as realistic as humanly possible.

This is Barack Obama we’re talking about – apologist, waffler, foreign-policy novice. He doesn’t even refer to the current war as such. It is an Overseas Contingency Operation, remember? How can one believe that the President is troubled by the release of a terrorist when one of his first actions as Commander-In-Chief was to order the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba closed?

Get real.

Hughes’ “one-way street” comment obviously does not apply to the history between the United States and Great Britain – see World War I, World War II, the Cold War. But as we all stand witness to a brand new history being forged by the in-over-his-head, wonder boy from Illinois, it is obvious that all one-way streets clearly lead right back to the Messianic Palace.

(Uh, oh. I used the word “boy.” Did you hear that, Maureen Dowd?”)

–

WHAT’S THIS ABOUT CIVILITY?

When leftists take to the streets to protest, it is not only newsworthy, it is also (we are told) noble, meritorious and rooted in genuine concern for some great issue affecting humanity.

When conscientious young skulls of leftist mush demonstrated against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, convinced he would lead the world into World War III and foreordained nuclear devastation, they did so with the world’s media gazing upon them in awe. Protestors were showered with accolades, praised not only for their highborn cause, but their willingness to get involved and stand up for their beliefs.

Protests – even riots – against George W. Bush (complete with calls for his impeachment, routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, and publications hopeful for his eventual assassination) were met with reckonable commentary focusing on the deep concerns of the American citizenry, the anxiousness of a troubled electorate, and the blessings of a society that affords its people the opportunity to redress their grievances.

By contrast, when liberals are in power, protests against them are never based on the genuine concerns of the public. Those who speak out against leftists at the helm are never noble or admirable. The beauty of a society where the citizens can redress their grievances suddenly becomes irrelevant. Whatever anxiousness there may be among those protesting liberal power is rooted in selfishness and even bigotry. Thus the motivations of those who oppose liberal policies are engrained not in presenting a viable alternative, but in achieving a diabolical and sinister goal – whatever that might be.

It seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?

Remember, whereas conservative bigotry divides, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can accuse those who oppose ObamaCare of being swastika carriers, and no one is particularly outraged. She can tearfully warn against conservative protestors potentially resorting to the kind of violence that took the lives of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978, and no one blinks an eye. Corrupt Congressman Charles Rangel of New York can say that racism is behind the widespread opposition to Obama’s leftist policies, and it all seems to make sense. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call Town-Hall protesters “evil mongers,” and his words are taken seriously. Reid can also call President Bush a liar, and no one as much as lifts an eyebrow; but when Congressman Joe Wilson accuses President Obama of lying, America pauses in gapped-mouthed amazement at the lack of civility. Dissenters to the Obamacratic vision for America can be called kooks, fringies, right-wing nutcases, gun-happy bigots, Kool-Aid drinkers, racists, or whatever pejorative fits the bill for the moment, and never are the validities of their dissent analyzed the same way “Bush=Hitler” protestors were.

Liberal anger is patriotic.

Conservative anger is dangerous.

On yesterday’s edition of Hardball on sparsely viewed MSNBC, the ever-vexatious and never-delightful Chris Matthews said the following:

“ … the activists on radio are not afraid because they’re not afraid of anything. But at some point if we have violence in this country against our president of any form or attempt, people are gonna pay for it, the people who have encouraged the craziness. And I get the feeling, at some point, the responsible grown ups like people who have [been] elected 20 or 30 years, who know what it means to be responsible officeholders, must be saying to themselves, ‘I don’t want to be one of the people responsible if one of these Looney Tunes gets a gun and does something.’ “

“People are gonna pay for it?”

“Looney Tunes?”

Civility, thy name is Matthews.

What exactly is he talking about? Angry, sign-waving, expletive-shouting, rock-throwing, anti-war, Amerika-with-a-k, Bush-lied-people-died fanatics were nothing to concern ourselves with, but conservative dissent somehow translates into the frightening prospect of violence?

Funny how that works.

Matthews also said that all of the “anti-government” talk wasn’t improving anyone’s life and that the “clown show” was over. (Of course, Obama has at least three more years to serve, so the “clown show” regrettably goes on).

Note how Matthews unabashedly reveals the core belief of his political creed: that only government can improve anyone’s life.

It goes without saying (or it should) that anyone with any sense of what this country has always been about understands that one’s liberty is directly proportional to the amount of power the government has over its citizens. As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”

Indeed.

This kind of thinking, of course, creates ulcers in the collective colon of liberal America. To them, it’s only about government.

The so-called “lack of civility” on the right – fuelled by talk radio haters and angry cable news channel gabbers, they say – has become all the rage in trying to explain why there is so much opposition to the Obamacratic transformation of America. It isn’t possible in Liberal-Land to legitimately oppose an expansion of government, or speak out against it, because in the world of Chris Matthews (and his fun-loving leftist brethren), only government can make the boo-boo all better. Thus, the motive for the dissent must rest elsewhere – perhaps in racist inclinations, deep-rooted anger in the multiculturalization of the country, greed, selfishness, sexism, whatever. There is no genuine compassion on the right – only self-centeredness. There is no tolerance on the right – only bitterness. There is no civility on the right – only anger.

Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood – a Republican – broke out his own slice of civility by lashing out against conservative talk show radio hosts and cable new network talking heads, saying “they have eroded civility and impeded the nation’s ability to solve big problems.”

Joe Hallett of the Columbus Dispatch writes:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Dispatch that the level of “harsh discourse in Washington has probably reached an all-time high,” and he partly blamed it on “all of this trash talk about the process and about politicians 24/7” on cable television and talk radio.

LaHood referred to criticism Obama received for appearing Sunday on five television news shows to promote his health-care overhaul. The secretary also indicated that even the president’s bully pulpit is no match for the cacophony over the airwaves from the political right.

“He can’t even compete with all this stuff that people are saying about him, so the idea that he did five interviews on Sunday, that’s just minuscule compared to the kind of trash talk that goes on all week prior to that,” LaHood said.

“All of this background, all of this trash talk in the background, it does not contribute to civil discourse, and it does not contribute to the government or the country’s ability to solve big issues.”

Absolute nonsense.

What Mr. Hallett really means is that conservative talk-show hosts and cable news channel kibbitzers are helping to make it impossible for the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants without a meddling constituency sticking their noses in things. What Mr. Hallett is bothered by is the fact that Americans are not just rolling over and taking whatever they’re told to take by the big boys in charge. What disturbs the Transportation Secretary is the reality that taxpayers will not accept that their elected officials can be trusted.

It is precisely conservative talk-radio, right-leaning cable news channel pundits, and the explosion of coast-to-coast Tea Parties – in conjunction with a very well-informed electorate – that have enabled the current debate on health care reform to flourish and continue.

It is not trash talk, despite what Hallett the Rino says.

As I have alluded to before – and still worth repeating – it makes one wonder exactly what acceptable discourse and dissent actually sounds like in the eyes of panicked leftists.

–

A WHOLE LOT OF FOOTPRINTS

Indeed, these are the types of stories that so flow with delectable irony that to comment on them seems almost like cheating.

Still, I haven’t the willpower to resist.

If the ever-worsening condition of the planet due to man-made global warming can be quantified in part by the global footprints we leave behind through our actions, then this week in New York City is helping to assure that there is no hope whatsoever for our ailing globe. As world leaders gather in the Big Apple to address the ever-nauseating, never-relevant United Nations Summit on Climate Change, the carbon footprints these environmental warriors are leaving behind is nothing short of catastrophic – if you are inclined to hysteria.

Mark Knoller at Political Hotsheet writes:

It happens every autumn: midtown Manhattan becomes the motorcade capital of the world. Each foreign leader in town has a convoy of vehicles. Some of them, like President Obama’s motorcade, are 20-to-30 vehicles in length. It’s so long – it seems that when the front of it reaches the U.N., the back end is still back at his hotel.

Exacerbating the annual exercise in diplomatic gridlock are police actions, blocking intersections and closing streets for security to facilitate motorcade movements. It renders countless other vehicles immobile while waiting for motorcades to pass, their engines idling but still blowing exhaust into the midtown air

Does it undermine the goal of the climate change summit and cause the pledges of environmental concern to ring hollow?

Asked about it, White House climate change negotiator Todd Sterns had a suggestion.

“I think the U.N. should make a pledge to electric vehicle motorcades within five years,” he said.

Right. As soon as all U.N. diplomats pay their parking tickets.

Former Vice President Al Gore, purported to be on his private jet heading for a Global Warming symposium, could not be reached for comment.

–

DAVE AND THE SAVIOR

Barry and Dave

I suppose the easiest thing would be to just call everyone involved a racist and have done with it. Unfortunately, the two players in this interesting little saga are not only black, but painfully liberal – which automatically renders the “Clarence Thomas/Uncle Tom” angle unusable.

Still, the David Paterson-Barack Obama story keeps getting better all the time.

On one side is David Paterson, the beleaguered, do-nothing, impotent, in-over-his-head, stumbling, bumbling Governor of New York. He is the man whose approval rating is often confused for his shoe size. He is the man who has already blamed a racist press for his unpopularity, despite the fact that New York is among the bluest of the blue states.

On the other sides is Barack Obama. He is the Messiah.

The story almost writes itself.

Paterson says he is still running for Governor, period. Despite reports that he was asked to drop out for the good of the Democratic Party by Obama henchmen (after saying that American black leaders, including the President, are treated unfairly by the media), Paterson has refused to throw in the towel.

Whether or not President Obama personally agrees with Paterson’s perceptions of a racially biased media doesn’t matter, nor is it particularly relevant, because almost immediately after the Governor’s comments, the White House decided that Paterson was – pardon the expression – a “black eye” on the Party and needed to go away.

After all, with so much of the national dialogue consumed with matters of race in recent times, it just wouldn’t do to have the President associated with race-baiting twaddle such as Paterson’s – especially with health care yet to nationalize and so much government yet to grow.

Hence, the request from the White House for Paterson to bow out.

Paterson predictably took offense to the White House meddling in Empire State politics, brandishing an attitude that was something akin to, “Stay the hell out of New York!“

(If Paterson was white, Maureen Dowd would have undoubtedly heard the word “boy” at the end of that sentence).

And so we begin the latest chapter of this twisted tale.

As it stands now, the New York Governor is effectively blaming Prseident Obama’s ineffectiveness as Chief Exceutive for the friction that exists between the two of them – and ultimately for Paterson’s own deficiencies.

Azi Paybarah at PolitickerNY.com writes:

Paterson chalked up Obama’s intervention to Washington politics.

“I understand the president’s concern and I understand concern of staff members at the White House. If you look at it from their perspective, they haven’t exactly been able to govern in the first year of their administration in the way that other administrations have, where you would have, theoretically, a period in which the new administration is allowed to pass the needed pieces of legislation.”

But Paterson said Obama “was gracious to me. He asked me how I was feeling” and “he expressed a little chagrin about the process in this situation.”

Paterson also said it was untrue that he had been given a “direct message from a congressman” as had been reported in the New York Times, which named Representative Gregory Meeks as the messenger.

Bam and Company are not exactly thrilled about being tied to Paterson’s failures.

I guess Governor Dave shouldn’t expect any invites to supper at the White House any time in the forseeable future.
–

GLENN BECK’S “SAY WHAT?” MOMENT

FNC's Glenn Beck

In an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Glenn Beck said, “I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama.” (I’ll set aside the snide commentary on why Beck chose Katie Couric, of all people, to sit down with).

Despite admiring much of what Glenn Beck says and does, this little nugget is a bona fide question-mark maker.

McCain would be worse than Obama?

In what dimension?

Beck also said he very well might have voted for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, had she been the Democrat nominee for President.

(Insert pregnant pause here).

I’m scratching my head so much that I’ve struck skull.

And the amzing thing is … there are mulitudes who agree with him.

I assure you, this is no slam on Glenn Beck in general – just on his ridiculous assertion that having John McCain in the White House would be worse for the United States of America than Barack Obama.

I must ask:

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have killed missile defense in Europe?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would let the Bush tax cuts expire?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would apologize for his country on foreign soil?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would close Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would pursue single-payer health care?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have stood by and said nothing while innocents were being slaughtered by the Iranian government?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have backed a dictator-in-waiting in Honduras?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have attempted to impose “cap-and-trade” in the midst of the “worst recession since the Great Depression?”

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have expanded federal government spending to the record-breaking levels Obama has?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would want to slash our nuclear arsenal to the point of eventually eliminating them altogether?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain views the rights of the unborn as Barack Obama does?

Fair questions, I believe.

I promise, I am no fan of John McCain, nor did I play one during the last Presidential campaign cycle, but Beck’s contention is downright dumb.

Talk show host Mark Levin took issue with Beck on his radio program:

“How can you, day after day, night after night, correctly rail against Obama and his radicalism – how he’s undermining the Constitution; how he’s nationalizing our basic industries; how he has Marxists all around him – and then say in an interview with Katie Kouric, “I think John McCain would have been worse than Obama?”

…

That’s not good.

McCain is no conservative. In fact, in many respects, he’s a progressive – which is why I fought him, day in and day out. Day in and day out behind this microphone. Not only fought him behind this microphone, but wrote article after article – Go ahead and google it – rejecting his candidacy.

But to say that he would be worse than a President who’s a Marxist? Who’s running around the world apologizing for our nation? Who’s slashing our defense budget? Who’s nationalizing our health care system? To say he would be worse is mindless.

Mindless.

Incoherent.

…

I’m sorry ladies and gentleman. I speak from the heart, and I speak from the mind. I don’t know who people are playing to. I don’t know why they’re playing to certain people.

Ron Paul is another one – this fascination with Ron Paul. Ron Paul who blames America – “American Imperialism” – for the attacks on 9-11. How could any conservative embrace that? While his domestic arguments – 80% of them are sound, in my humble opinion – he goes way off the cliff when it comes to foreign policy and blaming America, and American armed forces, and American good will, in my humble opinion, for instigating the Islamo-Nazi attacks on us. How could anybody embrace that?

And yet, the 5PMer (Glenn Beck) does.

No, I don’t think so.

No, I think there’s enormous confusion, and positioning, and pandering.

It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it’s not. It’s pathetic.”

Now with that said, if Beck is operating from the perspective that the Obama presidency is serving to galvanize conservatives and the Republican Party in the same sort of way Ronald Reagan did following the debacle that was the Jimmy Carter presidency, I can certainly appreciate that. If Beck is trying to point out that the explosion of Tea Parties across the map, along with widespread opposition to ObamaCare, would not have been possible without the current messianic leadership – and thus would not have thrown the spotlight onto big-time Obama-style leftism – I understand where he is coming from.

Still, Beck is fundamentally wrong.

Under Barack Obama, the United States is on a course of no return. It was not – and is not – worth the damage Obama’s Marxist-type policies will do to this country to enable a “true conservative” to rise from the ashes and save the day.

I, for one, was not willing to “sacrifice” four years of my nation’s well-being to prove a point. After all, we did have Reagan for eight years … and look where we are now.

It is far easier – by definition – to reverse conservative policies than liberal ones.

–

CLAY BLOCKS AND SHEEP’S WOOL

Do as I say, not as I do

If you haven’t done so already, please stop whatever you’re doing, suspend anything and everything you may be involved in – except reading this particular blog entry, of course – and heed the words you are about to ingest. Those of you who choose to waste their focus and concerns on such passe things as the War Against Islamo-Fascism (or other right-wing concoctions) not only directly place the lives of their fellow human beings in imminent peril, but also threaten the very well-being and future of the planet.

There are real issues to tend to.

It isn’t about good versus evil. Rather, it is about green versus brown, cold versus hot, envirnomentalism versus dastardly capitalism.

With our globe hanging in the balance, thanks to the ongoing ravages being inflicted on the planet by humankind, the latest admonishions from Great Britian’s foremost thinker and climatologist, Prince Charles, are as relevant as ever. His warning is racing around the globe like angry greenhouse gas molecules on steroids.

We had best pay attention.

The future King of England is urging humans, wherever they may roam – in the name of reducing crabin emissions – to abandon their motor cars in favor of public transportation and walking.

Andrew Pierce from the Telegraph.UK website writes:

The Prince, who has two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and still drives an Aston Martin given to him by the Queen on his 21st birthday, said developers had a duty to put public transport and the pedestrian at the heart of their housing schemes.
Speaking about the “domination of the car over the pedestrian”, the future King said: “We must surely be able to organise ourselves… in ways in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

The Prince said the principle of “elevating the pedestrian above the car” was one of the guiding factors of Poundbury – his model development in Dorset. The importance of “pedestrian friendly public space” is central to the Poundbury ethos.

…

He said that his architectural charity – the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment – was creating a “natural house” using green materials such as clay blocks and sheep’s wool for insulation. It is taking shape at the Building Research Establishment’s Innovation Park in Watford.

Did you catch that? Clay blocks and sheep’s wool.

Splendid.

And seeing as nothing quite brings home the point better than leading by example, it is not unreasonable to inquire of the Prince how long the transformation from stone and brick to mud and fur will take at Buckingham Palace?

What, pray tell, oh future King of England, are the electricity bills at Buckingham Palace each month?

Is the bathroom tissue at the Palace (or on your jet, or on your yacht) single-ply, easily-degradable, restaurant-grade paper, oh King-to-be?

And do you use only one square at a time?

As one blogger wrote, “When was the last time this pampered pooch walked anywhere?”

Another wrote, “On your bike, mate!”

Perfect.

In other news, the world is not warming, it has been a very quiet Atlantic hurricane season, and Michael Jackson is still dead.

–

A TOUCH OF COLONIAL NEW YORK

Unlike Philadelphia and Boston, much from New York City’s colonial period has been lost to time. Despite a rich history – including being the nation’s first capital city, and the place where the Bill of Rights was passed – there is no colonial section of lower Manhattan. Almost all of the structures from the Revolutionary period don’t exist anymore. Even the actual building where George Washington took the Oath of Office as the first President of the United States is gone. (The original Federal Hall was detroyed in 1812 and rebuilt in 1842).

However, there are ties to America’s founding just waiting to be discovered in lower Manhattan – something every American should see.

Federal Hall, located at 26 Wall Street, is the very site where George Washington was sworn in as America’s first President. The statue of Washington in front of the building is magnificent.

Inside the building is a museum where you can see the actual concrete slab Washington stood on when he took the Oath of Office, as well as the actual bible he put his hand on when taking the oath.

 

Just a short walk away is St Paul’s church – also known as the Little Chapel That Stood. It was completed in 1766. It is directly across the street from Ground Zero and famously served as a place of rest and refuge for rescue and recovery workers after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

For eight months, hundreds of volunteers worked 12 hour shifts around the clock, serving meals, making beds, counseling and praying with fire fighters, construction workers, police and others. Massage therapists, chiropractors, podiatrists and musicians also tended to their needs.

It is the oldest public building in continuous use in Manhattan and the only colonial era church remaining there.

George Washington worshipped at St. Paul’s on the day he was inaugurated in 1789, and continued to do so regularly for the two years New York was the nation’s capital. Washington’s pew is still there.

Alexander Hamilton is buried at Trinity Church on Broadway, at the intersection of Wall Street.

There are a host of fascination headstones dating back to the Revolutionary period at both Trinity Church at St. Paul’s – including many Revolutionary War veterans.

If you are afforded the opportunity to visit, take a moment to say a prayer and place a flower on the final resting places of these earliest American heroes.

It is never too late to say “thank you.”
–

LIBERAL RACIST RADAR

Columnist Maureen Dowd, among her other enviable attributes and talents, has sensory perceptions beyond those of most mortals. She can actually hear things that have not been said. She knows what others are saying without them having to say it because she hears the words in her mind.

Impressive doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Such was the case when Congressman Joe Wilson spat out the “You lie!” heard ‘round the world. It was after Wilson became Hitler-light to the left and a hero to the right that Dowd afforded all of us the opportunity to witness her miraculous gift. While the rest of us may have heard his outburst as two now infamous words, Ms. Dowd heard three: “You lie, boy!”

She said so.

No one is quite sure how she did it exactly (or how she will undoubtedly continue to do so), but one thing is for sure –  this is a skill set that must be developed and exploited properly.

Extraordinary as her Godless-given ability is, there is one thing that Ms. Dowd falls short on – namely, the ability to hear things that actually are there.

Of course, that can be a decidely difficult thing in and of itself.

To be fair, one can hardly blame her.

Having to deal with the things that resonate only in her head can predictably have a detremental effect on comprehending the tangible.

It’s not easy being Maureen.

Recall these controversial words by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

While the shallow (and less clairvoyant) among us might have heard what were seemingly racist sentiments coming from Sotomayor, Dowd heard no such thing, writing in a column called “White Man’s Last Stand“:

“You can’t judge a judge by her cover. Despite the best efforts of Republicans to root out any sign that Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place. A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.”

Clever.

How delightfully discerning.

Note how selective and unpredictable liberal racist radar can be.

There are times when its trigger mechanisms are tripped falsely by innocuous phrases like “black eye,” or “in the black.”

Call them false positives.

And there are other times when the alarms are dead silent, like when rap artists use the “n” word in their songs, or when Charlie Rangel opens his mouth.

Recall earlier this week when former President Jimmy Carter said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

Radar systems were apparently offline.

Carter is so morally detestable on so many levels that it’s hard to be angry with him anymore when he reaches new highs in taking the low road.

To him – and all other desperate Dems – health care reform’s demise, should it come to that, will be because the President is black.

What was the excuse when it failed under Bill Clinton?

I know he was called “the first black President,” but come on ….

–

 

IT WAS 222 YEARS AGO TODAY

It was two-hundred twenty-two years ago today that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met to sign the document they spent almost four months debating and creating.

As it was being signed, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania took occassion to comment on something that had held his attention throughout the duration of the Constututional Convention. It was the image of a half-sun, painted on the back of George Washington’s chair.

Said Franklin:

I have often in the course of that session, looked at the sun behind the president without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting. Now at length I have the happiness to know that it is indeed a rising and not a setting sun.”

Amen. 

 

–

CONTEMPTIBLE HANK

Congressman Hank Johnson

“He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks,” said Congressman Hank Johnson about colleague Joe Wilson, “If I were a betting man, I would say that it instigated more racist sentiment.”

Tolernace is a peculiar word to use.

I would say something about the pot calling the kettle black, but I might get accused of being a Grand Wizard or something.

I don’t recall Mr. Johnson – or any of his fellow Dems – condemning anyone during the nearly eight-year cavalcade of vitriolic Bush bashing that took place prior to the Messianic Age. Where exactly was Mr. Johnson when swastikas were being substituted for the letter “s” in any number of anti-George W. Bush protest signs? Where were his thoughtful remarks after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called President Bush a liar? Where was the call for civility when former Vice President Al Gore bellowed like an angry old man returning socks at Wal Mart, screaming that Bush had betrayed this country.

I suppose Dems were just being tolerant.

If I were a betting man, I would guarantee that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are at (or near) their breaking points, tired of this ongoing desperation game being played by panicked Democrats.

Johnson went on to say, “I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people.”

Contemptibility, thy name is Hank Johnson.

Come now, Congressman, do you actually believe that people will now start sporting white hoods and uniforms? Are you serious? Do you truly think that in this day and age Ku-Klux-Klan-like bands of angry racists are going to take to the “countryside” and terrorize people? Because of two words blurted out by one congressman?

Are liberals born this way, or is it a contracted condition?

I don’t expect the mainstream media, in its infinite uselessness, to question such ignorant and embarrassing comments made by a black congressman. The fact is, from Charles Rangel to Diane Watson, when black politicians cry racism, the rest of the world is expected to take it, accept it as truth, fold up like a cheap table, and go find other racist conservatives to yak about.

But aren’t Johnson’s claims of a possible return to burning crosses and lynching at least as provocative, or worthy of at least the same media attention, as the assertion by the President that illegals would not be covered by his health care reform plan? Is there no one in the mainstream media who thinks that Mr. Johnson needs to explain himself any further? Are there no follow up questions anywhere to be asked of this man? Are journalists simply exhausted from expending all their energy and resources into covering Joe Wilson and the aftermath of his ruthless “You lie!” attack on the President?

I would ask Mr. Johnson, and every other coward who has used racism to explain away opposition to the President’s agenda, if it is possible to disagree with Obama and not be a racist? If so, what would that opposition look like or sound like?

–

A DINNER TIME THOUGHT ON TAXES AND SELFISHNESS

Why is it that those who accuse conservatives of being selfish for wanting to hold on to more of their own money by keeping taxes low aren’t, too, called selfish?

By voting for others to foot the tax bills, isn’t that, by definition, selfish?

Discuss.

A tip of the hat to talk show host Dennis Prager for once again keeping the old synapses firing.

–

RACISM WINNING?

In the event you missed it, a little more than half of the United States is officially racist.

That little morsel comes from the folks at Rasmussen, who reported yesterday that 55% of Americans oppose President Obama’s health care reform plans – a new high (or low, depending on your perspective). And since opposing Barack Obama’s hard left policies, according to the likes former President Jimmy Carter, is based on the fact that Americans cannot accept a black man occupying in the Oval Office, there is no other conclusion to draw.

A week ago, 44% supported the proposal and 53% were opposed. Following the speech last Wednesday night intended to relaunch the health care initiative, support for the president’s effort bounced as high as 51% (see day-by-day numbers). But the new numbers suggest that support for health care reform is now about the same as it was in August.

And just think … if these free-market-killing, big-government proposals had only come from a white man, health care reform might have already passed both houses of Congress and tens of millions of neglected people would now be able to get rationed, mediocre health care.

I can only imagine how many swatiska-brandishing, negro-hating Americans are sitting around their dinner tables discussing the matter, saying, “I could really go for this big-government, expanding bureaucracy approach if only the guy pushing it wasn’t so dark.”

–

LEFTIST INTELLECTUALISM – BECAUSE HE’S BLACK

What is wrong with these people?

It makes no sense.

It’s almost as if those who oppose Him don’t wish to be saved. Can’t these contrarians and malcontents understand that when they cry afoul and moan about the erosions of personal liberty, they are helping to extinguish moral and economic imperatives being proposed for their own good? Can’t these rabble-rousing, tea-party drones cool it with their tiresome talk-radio inspired “personal responsibility” chatter and all that “liberty” rhetoric?

Clear-thinking reasonable citizens of the world would never oppose such a battery of forward thinking policies as we are now seeing nine months into the Messianic Age. It thus stands to reason that to be against Him is to be mired in timeworn obsoleteness. To oppose Him is to oppose all that would unify. It cannot possibly be the substance of an Obamacratic policy that causes people to take an opposing position; not when the policy in question is cut from messianic cloth. It can only be the myopic citizenry wallowing in their antiquated prejudices and bigotry, hell-bent on stifling an uppity black man with vision. And since asking the question, “What is wrong with these people?” will never bring an answer that satisfies the disciples, there can only be one reason why there still exist those who won’t board the Obama transformation train.

His skin color.

That’s what we’re told by the most serious thinkers on the left.

Those who postulate and predicate modern liberalism are doing all they can to create new conventional wisdom – namely, that what sits at the core of the uproarious opposition to Barack Obama’s push to drop the health care delivery system on the lap of the federal government is the darkness of his skin.

It has to be, they say.

What else could it be?

Fair and open-minded people would never argue that there will be a major problem in adding thirty million people (formerly forty-seven million) to the nation’s insurance rolls while the number of physicians and nurses remains stagnant. No way. That’s race-based gobbledygook.

Rational thinkers would never question how such an expansive plan could possibly save money, as He suggests it would, even though demand would explode to astronomical proportions. No chance. To do so would be engaging in masked racism.

Level-headed policy wonks would never question Him when He says that illegal aliens would not be covered with taxpayer dollars, even though there is no provision that allows for the citizenship status of potential patients to be verified. No sir. To suggest He is being dishonest about this, as Congressman Joe Wilson did last week, is akin to burning a cross, or using the “n” word.

In short, those who stand up against the policies of Barack Obama do so because he is black.

And they hate having a black President.

Period.

So we’re told.

If it were Joe Biden (God forbid) making the same speech last Wednesday, Joe Wilson would have said nothing.

The ever-effervescent Maureen Dowd in her most recent column writes:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

…

Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

Dowd goes on to point out that Wilson, at one time, belonged to the Sons of the Confederacy – an offense so hanus, its equal has yet to be realized. I’m not sure exactly how much weight Ms. Dowd really puts in the past associations of elected officials, but the names Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. The organization ACORN also rings a bell.

Nowhere did the magnificent Ms. Dowd bother to mention that Mr. Wilson is also a colonel in the National Guard.

She’s silly that way.

Sports-scribbler-turned-incoherent-leftocrat Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote:

This is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.

Wilson really did sound like somebody who had been on hold for an hour, waiting to scream about socialism to Rush.

But why wouldn’t Wilson scream out the way he did? This is a time when a radio host like Mark Levin routinely refers to President Obama as “that jerk,” all in the name of liberty, of course, and the fight against tyranny. Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren’t enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.

Such is the intellectual left.

Note that race magically becomes a negligible component when the likes of Ms. Dowd and Mr. Lupica, i.e., white liberals, speak out in opposition against powerful black conservatives, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (black). Does Thomas’ “blackness” – or lack thereof as some have suggested – suddenly become irrelevant when lefties espouse criticisms of his positions? Why does no one accuse Dowd of harboring deep-seated racist inclinations when she criticizes a black who happens to be conservative? Or Lupica? Or any white on that side of the garden? Surely, they have no great love for the positions and philosophies of people like Larry Elder, J C Watts and Walter Williams. So then, when white libs criticize black conservatives, where are the “You’re not black enough, boy!” accusations?

The answer?

Because race is an issue only to conservatives, even though liberals are the ones who keep bringing it up. Even the ever-affable and lovable Bill Cosby referred to Clarence Thomas as a “brother lite” not too long ago.

I suppose that when “one of them” criticizes “one of their own,” there is truth in it.

So, when columnist extraordinaire Paul Krugman takes the opposing view of conservative thinker Thomas Sowell, is it because of Sowell’s race? Shouldn’t Krugman be branded a racist by default?

How about columnist Frank Rich? Safe to say, he’s no supporter of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. If he lambastes the Republican Party in his columns (which is like saying, “if he breathes”), should those of us on the right now fit him for a white sheet and hood?

As long as guilt-ridden white people can point out how awful other white people are, with a whole lot of black people looking on, modern liberalism will never run out of nourishment.

–

KEITH-O HAS GOT TO GO

With the New York Mets being the unmitigated disaster they have been this year, the bulk of my sporting life attention has shifted to football. Thus, on a personal level, yesterday was nothing short of a wonderful day for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the opening of the National Football League season (Thursday’s game not withstanding). My wife and I spent the entire afternoon watching both New York teams walk away with victories. We relaxed, snacked, screamed at the TV when necessary, and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. It was a lot of fun, to be sure – although I’m not sure what in the world possessed me to pick Miami over Atlanta. (That’s a separate issue).

Anyway, as a fitting nightcap to an already splendid day of laziness, chicken wings and delicious violence, we thought we would tune in and watch the Sunday night game on NBC. It featured the game’s all-time rivalry, the Green Bay Packers and the Chicago Bears – a tradition that is eclipsed only by the time-space continuum itself.

However, what had been a glorious Sunday of gridiron goodness almost immediately descended into the depths of broadcasting hell the moment we landed on NBC.

Like unexpectedly hearing the voice of Nancy Pelosi, or being diagnosed with a severe intestinal blockage, it ambushed us.

Like a passing afternoon Florida thunderstorm, or liberal sensibility, it came from nowhere, and we were wholly unprepared.

It was both frightening and spellbinding.

It was … Keith Olbermann.

(cue scary music, thunder)

My wife looked at me as if her bungee chord has just snapped.

I immediately grabbed the first thing I could find when his snarky voice assaulted my ears, although I’m not sure why.

Confusion took hold.

We couldn’t help but shudder in those first moments when our senses and coherence were thrown into transitory chaos. Time seemed to freeze for a moment. A heavy darkness descended upon our little living room on Staten Island’s South Shore like an anvil hones in on a Warner Brothers cartoon character.

When I finally regained my equilibrium, with Olbermann’s voice still seeping from my TV’s speakers. my instincts commanded me to save my family. I hastily prepared to remove my children from the home and gather essentials. I even glanced at the phone in a panic, deciding whether or not to call 9-1-1. Throwing something large and heavy through the TV screen somehow seemed appropriate for a fleeting instant.

Fortunately, I managed to find the “channel up” button on my remote before our lives were turned upside-down.

Things slowly returned to normal.

Keith had been removed.

Once oxygen levels had stabilized in my blood stream – and my wife had gone to bed tremendously distressed – I decided I needed to sit myself down and comment on the fact that this former-sports-yacker-turned-liberal-nutbag was on my TV screen in my house talking football. Sure, I knew Olbermann used to be a sports guy in a previous life, but that train has long since been dismantled. He doesn’t do sports anymore. He makes his bones as a raging lunatic leftist kook. Despite what he used to do in his early days, he is currently synonymous with far left politics. He long ago ditched his sardonic sports desk persona to become an angry liberal windbag who throws things at the camera and calls it witty analysis. Like toe jam, ear wax, and that thing that’s been in back of the refrigerator since Saint Swithin’s last birthday, it is incalculably disgusting that such a dreadful little man – who is as hateful as he is uninteresting – is an NFL commentator with NBC.

He is one of the most detestable human beings in media today – not just controversial or provocative – but a mudslinging, unintelligent boob; and the fact that he is given the opportunity to show his mug on NBC’s Sunday Night Football is literally enough for me to turn the channel and not bother coming back until I know the game has started.

I know I am not alone.

(Advertisers need to pay close attention here).

Olbermann is not just your garden variety, Obama-is-our-savior, big-government liberal – like Bob Costas, for instance. Rather, Olbermann is a lying dirt bag of a man who constantly spews outright slanderous nonsense about those he doesn’t like. He is not a journalist in any sense of the word. He doesn’t substantiate his bogus claims and he lives on personal attacks. He is a spoiled brat, angry, liberal ass-kissing cowardly smear-merchant who will never debate those who oppose him. His ratings on MSNBC’s Countdown are horrific, his reasonability is nonexistent, and his clever Dennis-Miller-wannabe “smart guy” shtick is tired and tedious.

He needs to leave the NFL behind. NBC needs to boot him from Sunday Night Football.

Obviously, I don’t want him censored. Only government can censor.

Rather, NBC needs to know that there are many Americans who want this serial basher of conservatives (perhaps half of their market share, if not more) off the air.

There are plenty of uncontroversial football kibitzers who can do his job on NBC’s Sunday night pre-game and halftime shows – and far better.

Contact NBC.

Let them know.

Via E-Mail, write: nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com

By snail mail, write:

NBCSports.com
National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY

Let the countdown to dismissal begin.

Back to the MSNBC troll nook with him.

–

GIVE “GREEN” A CHANCE

Such is the nature of the blogosphere … an interesting idea, picture or quote pops up somewhere and before you know you it, it has spread across cyberspace quicker than Barack Obama can febreze the White House bathroom after sneaking a cigarette.

In my view, as long as proper credit is given to the originator of the content, it is perfectly alright to spread it around. It is, after all, the very heart and soul of blogging.

Thus, shamelessly swiping these two pictures from the great Proof Positive blog, who shamelessly swiped them from the equally great Say Anything blog, here is a study in practical environmentalism.

Guess which of these pictures was taken after a rally attended by limited-government, right-wing, free-market types, and which one was taken after a huge gathering of Obama worshippers.

Hint: Which group believes in personal responsibility?

 

If you guessed that the garbage-strewn scene was taken after a gathering of Obamacrat masses, you were right! It was actually taken after the President’s annointment ceremony in January in Washington, D.C.

Contrast that to the “clean” scene following this weekend’s DC Tea Party.

As Rob at Say Anything writes: Moral of the story: Conservatives clean up after themselves. Liberals expect other people to do it for them.

–

WHILE SHOPPING TODAY

New York City is as blue as blue can be – politically speaking.

In the very city that suffered the greatest destruction and loss of life during the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 there exists some of the greatest apathy toward the continuing War on Terror you’ll find anywhere. In the city where Obama t-shirts are sold on the corner like dirty-water hot dogs, anti-war buttons are as common as manhole covers, and a gigantic hole still exists where the twin towers used to stand,  conservatism is generally regarded with the same warmth as a painful inner ear infection.

Yet, there are places around the city where there still exist pockets of good old fashioned, unabashed, flag waving patriotism.

Here on Staten Island – the most conservative of New York’s five boroughs – on the front windows of the little market in my neighborhood are these two signs.

It truly did my heart good to see them.

–

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MY WIFE

I’d like to take a moment to wish my wife the very happiest of birthdays.

She is the world to me – my best friend, my confidant, the mother of my children, my life partner.

That she has stuck it out with me for more than 18 years makes it easy for me to say that there is no man more fortunate than I to have such a good and wonderful woman as a traveling companion on this life’s journey.

There is so much life left to live, and there is no one else in the world I’d rather live it with.

I can hardly wait.

Happy Birthday, love.

–

NEVER FORGET – SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 – AS IT HAPPENED

Eight years ago today, the United States of America was attacked by Islamist terrorists. Four airplanes were hijacked and used as missiles against targets in this country. The twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City were destroyed. The Pentagon in Northern Virginia was damaged. A fourth airplane crashed in rural Pennsylvanis before it could reach its intended target in Washington, D.C.

Nearly three thousand people were murdered that day.

The first television bulletin of the attack came at 8:49 AM on WNYW-TV in New York, just three minutes after American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower.

Presented here is a portion of a program I created several years ago documenting in timeline fashion how the 9/11 attacks were covered by the media on that fateful morning.

This first clip is a montage of the original “as it happened” breaking news bulletins from each of the networks (nationally and locally) just after the North Tower was attacked.

By 9:03 AM that mroning, all of the national news networks and all but one of New York’s local channels were covering the story.

The next clip is a montage of how each broadcast channel covered the crashing of United Airlines Flight 175 into the South Tower on live television. There are also additional angles of the attack taken from non-broadcast sources.

In what still ranks as the most horrifying thing I have ever witnessed, the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed into the streets of Lower Manhattan at 9:59 AM that morning, engulfing the entirety of the island’s southern tip in smoke. Listen to the broadcasters here – particularly ABC’s Peter Jennings as he speaks with correspondent Don Dahler who is on the scene.  Even as they watch the devastation unfolding before them, it is incomprehensible.

Jennings: A whole side has collapsed?

Dahler: The whole building has collapsed.

Jennings: The whole building has collapsed?

Dahler: The building has collapsed.

Twenty-nine minutes after the South Tower crumbled, the North Tower came down.

There were a total of 2,974 people murdered that day, including 343 members of the New York City Fire Department, 23 members of the New York City Police Department, 37 members of the Port Authority Police Department and 55 members of the United States military.

It is estimated that at least 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers.

–

IT WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO TODAY

Never Forget

 

–

THE PRESIDENT, A LIAR? REALLY?

"You lie!" he yelled.

As the House of Representiatives’  teleprompter continues to get accolades the morning after the President’s fifteen-thousandth speech on health care, consider a hypothetical scenario.

Imagine for a moment the federal government setting up a McDonalds type restaurant where the cost of hamburgers was only eight cents. Imagine the same restaurant offering large icy cold sodas for only fourteen cents, and a ten piece chicken nugget pack for a quarter. Then, imagine a string of these government-run restaurants being built in communities all across the country, serving the very same neighborhoods that the real free-market McDonalds does. Imagine such a place being subsidized in large part by tax payers. Imagine food being considered a right.

Here are some obvious questions … Where do you suppose cash-strapped teenagers and low-income families will go to eat? Do you think they’re more likely to patronize the place where five people can eat a whole lot of food for $3.00? Or the place where four small value meals can run over $20.00?

And what do you suppose will happen to the real McDonalds when it finds itself in direct competition with an entity that can print its own money to pay suppliers, never worry about answering to anyone, and offer the public up to 90% discounts on food? How long will it be able to survive?

Keep in mind, no one from the government has actually legislated the end of the real McDonalds. There is no language to be found anywhere to that effect. There doesn’t have to be an explicit law, or statute, or directive stating that it be officially be dissolved. There doesn’t have to be a provision, or clause, or reference in the original bill saying, “All privately owned McDonalds will hereby be abolished upon the passage of this bill into law.”

It will simply happen as a result of the law’s existence.

That’s because there is no way the real McDonalds can compete.

Thus, when proponents for a government-run McDonalds step up to the podium and look the American people in the eye and say, “It is simply untrue that the law says private enterprise in this area is to be eliminated,” they technically aren’t lying. There is literally nothing in the law that expresses it, explicitly or implicitly.

Now, with that in mind, think of what President Obama said last evening, when he assured the American people that illegals would not be covered by the government-run health care plan he is pushing – which prompted South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson to openly call the President a liar during his speech.

(You must’ve heard about it. It made all the papers).

What Wilson understands is that because there is no real checks-and-balance of any kind to keep illegals from being covered (and that the so-called “40 million uninsured” Obama has all along been peddling actually includes illegals) there ultimately can be no other result. Backdoor triggers and endless amendments will ensure that illegals eventually get the coverage Democrats wish they could just offer them outright. It doesn’t have to be spelled out in black-and-white because it is an inevitability, much like the death of the privately owned McDonalds in our hypothetical scenario.

As Gabriel Malor at the Ace of Spades blog writes:

Although (the House version of the bill) does not provide subsidies for illegal aliens, it does allow them to participate in the “healthcare exchanges.” It also contains a provision which prevents anyone from checking on the citizenship status of any person seeking healthcare.

You do the math.

President Obama is well aware of all this.

Think for a moment about the so-called “death panels” that opponents to ObamaCare – like myself – say will become a reality if passed into law. Indeed, there is no proposal anywhere that uses those very words, but what else can happen if there are suddenly “forty million” newly insured people in the system without an increase in the number of physicians to serve them?

Flat out rationing.

What other result can there be when severely limited resources meet up with skyrocketing demand?

And although I do believe that cat-calling the President of the United States while he is addressing a joint session of congress is wholly inappropriate, frankly I was not terribly offended by Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst – not like I was when Senator Dick Durbin equated our military to the Nazis on the Senate floor; or when the late Senator Kennedy announced that the Iraqi torture chambers were being re-opened under new American management under George W. Bush.

Those were unsubstantiated, contemptible claims made by shallow men with the inability to argue a point with anything other than emotionally-charged prattle.

Yes, that sound you hear is the collective orgasm of lib bloggers, commentators, reporters and professional spinsters across the map equating Joe Wilson with whatever their lastest benchmark of evil is. And while Wilson’s emotional outburst may have been wrong, he was thoroughly correct in understanding what will ultimately happen if (and when) ObamaCare kicks in.

Oh, and by the way … anyone who has the nerve to claim that Republicans are the ones who are wont to dip into their scare tactics bag to push their agendas, consider this passage from the President’s speech last evening:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.

Add that one to the long, ever-growing list of “liberal hysterias to feed” that include such chart-topping catastrophes-in-waiting as global warming, overpopulation, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic, and bird flu.

–

QUICK NOD TO MARK LEVIN

Like Sinatra and smooth, liberty and private property are indivisible.

Definitionally, those things, both appreciable and indefinite, belonging to entities (individuals or companies) who have legal and unshared rights over those things are considered private property.

At the very heart of liberty is the concept that owners are free to do as they wish with their private property, including transferring ownership – assuming all is being done legally.

It cannot be overstated how profoundly important and incontestible the point is when defending the notion of limited government; liberty and private property are inseparable.

One of the most concise – and very best – explanations comes from talk show host Mark Levin in his book Liberty And Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto.

He writes:

Liberty and private property go hand in hand. By dominating one the Statist dominates both, for if the individual cannot keep or dispose of the value he creates by his own intellectual and/or physical labor, he exists to serve the state.

In one beautifully composed sentence, Levin explains why liberty and private property are synonymous.

Memorize it.

Let your big-government, nanny-state friends nibble on it for a while.

Well done, Mark (as always).

Interesting to note is that as I was rat-a-tat-tatting away on this blog entry, my spell-checker left the dreaded red line of incomprehension under the word “Statist.” It’s a word that Levin uses in his book and on his radio show. It is most appropriate. It ought to become part of the American lexicon.

Add it to your dictionaries.

Oh yeah, and buy the book already, if you haven’t. And if you have, buy another one.

–

BAM’S BOOM ON THE CRASH-BAM-BOOMERS

It’s one thing to raise the ire of Republicans. It’s all in a day’s work for big-government, nanny-state leftists to get conservative blood boiling.

But when you get demolition derby drivers mad at you, then it’s time to step back and re-evaluate.

President Obama may be a lot of things to a lot of people, but according to Tory Schutte, head of the Demolition Derby Drivers Association, the President is an “anti-demo-derby guy.”

Ada Calhoun from Time.com writes:

There’s at least one group of people who are happy Cash for Clunkers is over: demolition-derby drivers. Participants in these events, in which drivers smash into one another until there’s only one engine left running, don’t enjoy the sight of old cars going out of commission without making a pit stop at the county fairground.

Schutte says, “He’s targeting the cars we’ve been using.”

The demolition derby, it can be said, is the original “cash for clunkers” program – and a damn successful one at that. Cars destined for the automotive hereafter are temporarily spared the inevitable by enthusiasts who prepare them for one final metal-twisting, body-crunching hurrah.

It’s the free market system at its best.

Cars must be stripped of all extraneous parts, including windows; any reinforcements other than roll bars and contestants will get disqualified. Gas tanks must be moved to the backseat and covered with scrap metal. Doors must be welded or chained shut.

Drivers, who are not allowed to ram driver’s-side doors, have to wear helmets. Many accessorize with neck braces.

Many demo-derby drivers, including some recently interviewed in Delaware County, New York, are confirming that Obama’s wonderfully dead “cash for clunkers” program has put a hurting on them.

From Time.com video:

Some folks here say the government’s recent “cash for clunkers” was no friend to the demolition derby. They say the program took too many crashable cars out of play.

-“It’s very hard to find good cars. Everybody’s getting rid of them.”

-“We’re going down to North Carolina. The guy I got this off of – I bought it in Michigan.”

-“It’s gonna be hard to find cars for the next few years.”

Do what you must, Mr. President.

Appoint contemptible people to fill one of your twenty-thousand “czar” positions. Continue your (destined to fail) all-out assault on the free market with your Marxist-flavored attack plans. Keep doing what you’re doing to feed your increasing disapproval numbers.

But do not screw around with the demolition derby.

Respectfully.

–

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SHIRLEY

I’d like to take this opportunity to send out a birthday wish to one of my most loyal and long-time readers. She goes back to the very early days of this blog – which really means back to last September.

She even yelled at me (through my wife) when I went on haitus earlier this spring.

I like that!

So, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SHIRLEY down in Fort Myers, Florida!

Thanks so much for everything.

Spread the word.

And for those of you who don’t know Shirley – which is just about all of you – trust me when I say she is a GREAT American.

–

PICTURE OF THE DAY FOR SEPTEMBER 7, 2009

–

WHEN BIDEN SPEAKS, FACT CHECKERS SCRAMBLE

Our Vice President

In terms of the news cycle, there is very little I look forward to as much as hearing anything the Vice President of the United States has to say. Call it a guilty pleasure – or a grievous mental defect – but knowing Joe Biden has spoken publicly somewhere – and that there could very well be sound bites from his visit – is a source of great excitement for me. It’s reminiscent of those anticipatory tinglings I would get as boy knowing a new album by a favorite musical group was about to be released, or a new movie was set to hit the theaters. When “Crazy Uncle Joe” opens his mouth, I am not only assured of having something to write about on the blog, I know that the bulk of what he says will be based on everything other than reality.

That’s what makes it so much fun.

Take Biden’s harebrained, la-la-land assertion that the Obama $787 billion stimulus bill passed in February is proving to be a success. Next to Elvis sightings and the Sports Illustrated prediction that the New York Mets would win the World Series this year, it’s hard to pinpoint anything more epically mythical.

He’s so adorable when he’s just being Joe, isn’t he?

Ben Feller of the Associated Press writes:

Defending a costly plan to revitalize the economy, Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday said the government’s sweeping stimulus effort “is in fact working” despite steady Republican criticism and public skepticism.

“The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country,” Biden said. “Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession.”

Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden delivered an upbeat report card about the $787 billion rescue effort that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress. He quoted estimates by private analysts that the plan has created or saved 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. But many million people remain out of work.

The effectiveness of the two-year program is a matter of sharp political debate, and Biden sought to counter critics with a listing of tangible results.

Of course, Joe is a little light on some of the actualities of the spendulous recovery farce, but that never kept him from filling his pie hole with one or more of his own feet.

As of Monday, a little less than 15% of the stimulus bill has been spent – a total of about $85 billion. And the vast majority of it, up to this point, has not been spent on anything remotely stimulating.

Recall how the bill was sold to the American people back in February – as being the necessary life preserver for a nation on the brink of financial ruin. It was the only way to save the United States from destruction – and it had to be done quicker than immediately. There was no time to waste. America’s very existence depended on it.

Seven months later, with some economic indicators suggesting the recession may be slowing (stabilizing housing prices, a vibrant stock market, etc.), in a nation that was only a few short months ago flirting with elimination, the question is … how much has actually been spent on bona fide “stimulus?”

Arkady Kamenetsky (of the great Indy Mind blog), writing at the Examiner.com website breaks it down:

Let us examine some of the major recipients of taxpayer moneys for brevity we will examine those departments receiving more than 20% of allocated funds.

Railroad Retirement Board: Small chunk of change and unclear where the funds are going.

Social Security Administration: 13 billion spent upgrading computers and one time payments. Not stimulating as there is no direct impact to job creation.

Veterans Affairs: .5 billion spent on upgrading facilities, payments, state grants and benefits to veterans. While not stimulating, entirely justifiable given the neglected veterans in this country.

Department of Labor: 18 billion spent on providing education and worker training to workers and “easing the burden of the recession” by assisting and expanding access to health care. Not stimulating, no direct impact on job creation or tax benefits. Providing education to workers is not the responsibility of the federal government and easing the burden of the recession can create a dangerous precedent of reliance.

Department of Justice: 1 billion spent on providing training, equipment and support for crime prevention including the hiring of additional police offers. Stimulating as it provides jobs to those seeking employment as police officers, however police are the responsibility of municipal governments. In other words we here in Boston should be not be paying for cops in Wichita, Kansas.

Health and Human Services: 28 billion spent on upgrading hospital’s IT programs, research and state grants, Medicare payouts. The biggest recipient of taxpayer moneys has also the most vague and hard to navigate web-page, giving no clear answer as to what the money is being spent on. According to the information there, it appears that the money is being used to advance Obama’s theory regarding electronic record keeping and the health industry. Whether or not upgrading our hospitals will impact us beneficially is to be determined, but this appears to be non stimulating spending and egregious spending at that.

It is also worth mentioning the Department of Education which has spent 14 Billion on state grants, school modernization, Pell grant funding and possibly preserving education jobs in states where funding is critical. Largely not stimulating as most of the money is being used on things that simply have no impact on our economy what so ever and do not belong in a federal stimulus package.

Arkady also points out that in February the Congressional Budget Office predicted a slow down of the recession by the end of this year without the benefit of any messianic intervention. And while there is obviously no way of knowing how accurate that prediction would have been, free market economies are funny things. They’re cyclical – not unlike the climate. They have a strange way a straightening – or correcting – themselves with minimal government meddling. (See the Recession of 1921). Because panic (like the one that swept across this country last fall) often spawns the dreaded and quick-to-metastasize “do something” disease – even among conservatives – governments tend to grow, liberties tend to erode, and problems tend to be prolonged (See the Great Depression).

Commenting on Biden’s remarks that the “wasteful spending” dog didn’t bite, Christopher Flavelle and Amanda Michel at ProPublica write:

The government did allocate millions of stimulus dollars for tiger and lion cages at the National Zoo, as we reported in May. And the Florida Department of Transportation got $3.4 million to build tunnels for migrating turtles—a project praised by local residents but held up by Republicans as just the kind of wasteful-spending story the vice president wanted to avoid.

In July, we reported that more than $100 million in stimulus dollars were being spent on airports with fewer than one flight an hour, while many of the country’s busiest airports were getting nothing at all. Last month, the watchdog for the Department of Transportation did indeed bite, calling for a full audit of stimulus airport grants.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that some of the country’s busiest border checkpoints were getting no stimulus money while small checkpoints had been allocated millions of dollars. Among the checkpoints getting money – $199 million, or five times more than any other station – is one at Nogales, Ariz., the home state of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, the AP said.

And regarding Biden’s assertion that the spendulous money was to “bring relief to those hardest hit by the recession,” Flavelle and Michel write:

As ProPublica reported last month, a county-by-county breakdown of contracts, grants and loans showed no relationship between where the stimulus money is going and either unemployment or poverty.

…

The stimulus bill specifically calls for infrastructure funds to be directed at “economically distressed areas.” So far, at least, the numbers suggest that isn’t happening. States with higher unemployment are also spending and completing transportation projects more slowly, according to a stimulus spot check conducted by the ProPublica Reporting Network.

Imagine that.

–

CHARLIE’S TURN

New York Congressman, Charles Rangel - the Ethical One

I’m convinced; it is hard wired into the liberal brain. It is an automatic – like seeing someone talk to himself on a subway train, or that smell you get at your grandmother’s house. The reflex in libs to demonize and marginalize those with whom they disagree is involuntary. It’s like a back spasm or a reality television program – you can’t control it and it just won’t go away. As one reader of my blog noted, to even bother mentioning this phenonmena anymore is akin to breaking the news that grass is still green.

Yet, I admit to being captivated by it. It fascinates me – like an overturned truck on the side of the highway or an ever-expanding blood blister.

To the liberal mind, opposing a leftist positions can only be attributed to that which is unsavory – such as greed, prejudice  or lack of compassion. There can be no other reason to want to see liberal policies fail, according to liberals. That’s because the conservative is not merely a bearer of a contrasting view; he or she is driven by sinister motives. And because only liberals really care about people, those motives must be exposed to a nation in desparate need of some good old fashioned big government healing.

Nothing soothes the boo-boo like a little liberty-raping liberalism.

Thus, if something is repeated often enough, regardless of how farcical it is, it will just blend into the nooks and crannies of conventional wisdom.

Recently, New York Governor David Paterson blamed a racist media for his failures and unpopularity. The fact that he governs – using the term loosely – a state so prevailingly blue doesn’t seem to matter. It just isn’t possible that he is inadequate. After all, he’s black. It has to be racism.

Last week Congresswoman Diane Watson – a black woman – said that those opposed to ObamaCare wanted to see a President that looked like her fail. It just isn’t possible that the idea of universal health care is a bane to Americans who are paying attention. After all, the President is black. It has to be racism.

And now, added to the simmering bouillabaisse of race-card playing intellectual lightweights is everyone’s favorite corrupt politician – a man whose integrity and ethical standing can be placed on the surface of a diminutive electron with room to spare – Congressman Charles Rangel of New York.

Carl Campanile from the New York Post writes:

Rep. Charles Rangel said Tuesday that “bias” and “prejudice” toward Obama are fueling opposition to health-care reform.

…

“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’ ” Rangel (D-Manhattan) said Tuesday.

Speaking at a health-care forum in Washington Heights, Rangel said that when critics complain that Obama is “trying to interfere” with their lives by pushing for health-care reform, “then you know there’s just a misunderstanding, a bias, a prejudice, an emotional feeling.”

“We’re going to have to move forward notwithstanding that,” said Rangel, the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a chief health-care negotiator.

Rangel then likened the battle over health-care expansion for the uninsured to the fight for civil rights.

For all the nuance and astuteness that liberals are supposed to possess, they regularly expose themselves as nothing more than emotionally-driven wells of featherbrained fribble.

Unquestionably there is bias in the health care debate.

Shouldn’t there be?

Liberals are biased in thinking the government can ride in on a white horse and save the masses from impending doom. Conservatives are biased in thinking that decisions are best made by individuals.

Aren’t leftists, by definition, biased against conservative positions? And vice versa?

What point is supposedly being made here?

Frankly, Charles Rangel is an elitist ass.

He cannot muddle reality or redefine the terms of the game simply because he doesn’t want to accept the fact that Americans are exceedingly well-informed on the subject of ObamaCare and don’t like the idea of a government run system. Rangel and his ilk are in sheer denial that opposition to universal health care is really about defending liberty and preserving the power of the individual. His elitist instincts tell him that people really cannot be opposed to the messianic visions of health care coverage for all. Rather, it must hinge on racial prejudice – it has to.

Yes, Mr. Rangel is correct in saying that many Americans haven’t gotten over the fact that Obama won the White House – but it is not based on his blackness. (It isn’t even based on his half-whiteness). Conservatives marvel at the fact that last November nearly 53% of Americans decided on a leftist candidate with a conspicuous history of Marxist sympathies.

Do liberals ever respond to criticisms of their precious government-expanding agenda with anything that does not involve knee-jerking idiocy?  

And what better way of overloading the aforementioned cultural nooks and crannies of conventional wisdom with emotional twaddle then to tie the health care debate in with the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s? After all, once you do that, how can any self-respecting, decent human being argue against Obamacare?

Critics of ObamaCare blasted Rangel for taking the low road.

“Charlie Rangel knows that race has nothing to do with the health-care debate. He should not be implying that race has anything to do with it,” said Rep. Peter King (R-LI).

State Conservative Party leader Mike Long called Rangel’s comment “outrageous and outlandish” — and suggested the congressman might be trying to deflect attention from his ethics woes.

“Rangel is playing the race card. It’s clear that the congressman is trying to galvanize the minority community that this is ‘us against them.’ It’s going to backfire. A majority of people will see through this,” Long said.

Taking a page from the Paterson, Watson and Rangel Handbook of Politics, Logic and Foot Stamping, I cannot help but ask: Since President Obama is half-white, shouldn’t half of his plan be deemed acceptable?

I suppose the IRS is racist too, demanding all those back taxes from the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Commitee, Charlie Rangel.

–

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SIS!

Not that anyone here knows who she is, but I just wanted to wish my little sister a very happy birthday.

What is it, her fourth or fifth 29th birthday already?

How time flies.

–

TICKING BOMB LOGIC

Attorney General Eric Holder

In early August, it became Obamacratic doctrine. Officially, there was no longer a “War on Terrorism” to deal with.

A new sheriff meant new rules.

That whole “War on Terror” thing was so George W. Bush.

Instead, it was to be seen as the war against Al Qaeda and its “extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda’s murderous agenda.”

This, of course, was not to be confused with the phrase “Overseas Contingency Operation,” a term introduced by the Pentagon in March that, sadly, never became the iconic catchword the anti-Bushites had envisioned. Yesterday, in fact, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs – the greatest human ever to hold the position – went back and used the term “War on Terror” at his daily briefing.

It was an “oops” moment of considerable caliber.

(Those of us on the outside envision a punishment for Gibbs that will be as swift as it is severe).

If, as Obamacrats profess, there really is no “War On Terror” to fight – only a small group of crazed cave dwellers that need to be dealt with – then certainly it makes perfect sense to tie the hands of, and emasculate, the CIA.  After all, it is one of the prevailing motifs of modern liberalism – emasculation.

Attorney General Eric Holder simply is not going to allow patriotic Americans charged with the task of keeping America safe from terrorist attack to be rough with murderous thugs anymore. He has decided that the aggressive tactics and methods used to extract critical information from terrorists – intelligence that unquestionably kept America from sustaining a single post-9/11 terrorist attack – must now be investigated. We are, after all, living in a United States of America under new messianic management – one that is evolving and transforming. We measure our civility not by how we treat the innocent and the good but by how we coddle those who want to blow us the hell up. Tortuous interrogations employed by American intelligence operatives – like sleep deprivation and loud music – are things of the past.

Interestingly enough, Barack Obama finds himself in a bit of a bind. Before he became President, there can be no doubt that he was fully aware of Eric Holder’s belief that the Bush administration was guilty of sanctioning torture. Holder made it a point of saying so in speech after speech. Therefore, it would not have been unreasonable for anyone – including Bam – to conclude that Holder, as Attorney General, would look to bring the hammer down on what he viewed as the Bush torture machine.

Whether or not Barack Obama actually supports Holder in pursuing such a course of action is debatable (seeing as there is really nothing for Obama to gain from it), but for the President to not see this coming, or to be surprised by Holder’s actions, reflects far more on his naivety than anything else. Plus, to publicly go against the Attorney General on this would be a tough move, lest the hard left feel betrayed. And despite unconvincing – and frankly, pathetic – attempts by President Obama to somewhat distance himself from Holder’s time of “reckoning,” the time will come soon when he will have to do or say something presidential.

That ought to be entertaining.

Yet, it’s still interesting to note that in discussing the hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario with those who feel that aggressive methods of interrogation are never to be used unless a threat is imminent, a peculiar contradiction emerges. Indeed, most libs (and some conservatives) will tell you that while they believe the chance of a genuine “ticking bomb” situation actually coming to fruition is slim to none, they would generally agree that if such a life-and-death scenario should ever play out, with tens of thousands of lives in the balance, vigorous methods of extracting information could probably be tolerated – but again, only in that very rarest of instances.

On yetserday’s Mike Gallagher radio program, former Chief Assistant US attorney, and National Review Online contributor Andrew C. McCarthy commented:

If you think about the arguments they’ve been making since 2004 when Abu Grahib exploded into our consciousness, it’s never made any sense. Even (Senator John) McCain, who is a doctrinaire opponent of torture, has always said these tactics never work, (but) if we were in a “ticking bomb” scenario, of course we would do what we have to do to get the information, and we wouldn’t prosecute the guy later.

Well, if the tactics don’t work, why would you use them in a “ticking bomb” scenario?

Bingo.

–