One of the most frightening Obama videos I have seen

My feelings exactly.

This link will take you to interviews with Husseinn voters.

Be sure to have anything that you could use to commit suicide with locked up and unreachable while watching.

Do have a waste can to puke in.

If there ever was a demonstration of why a test is needed before people can vote, this video is that demonstration.

Hat tip to Powerline.

The priorities of the Left and how they will effect Obama

The following is an excellent point that no one is making. Why are the women's groups so silent about women's rights in Islamic lands?

NOVEMBER 16, 2008

From The Politico: Intense backlash from women’s groups may have pushed former Clinton Treasury Secretary Larry Summers off the short-list to lead Treasury for President-elect Barack Obama, according to widespread reports circulating in Democratic circles...

...The Summers backlash rises out of a controversial 2005 comment he made as president of Harvard University that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Coming on top of other tensions with faculty, the incident led to his ouster as president.

"Despicable. Absolutely despicable. The man did nothing wrong. He never said what was attributed to him, but the truth doesn't matter. Larry Summers was a breath of fresh air as president of Harvard, but the leftist, ultra-feminist crowd isn't interested in fresh air. It's easier to take on Summers than Muslim oppression of women, about which they're silent."

I have posted this before as an example of what the Left can expect, yet they say nothing. Nothing at all.

FP: Ms. Zand-Bonazzi let me begin with you. Tell us a bit about the circumstances behind Atefeh’s execution.

Zand-Bonazzi: Well, sadly this young woman was hung in public charged with adultery. The man with whom she had allegedly had sexual relations with was also arrested but he only received 75 lashes apparently and then freed!

However, in spite of the fact that her entire family pleaded, was condemned to death. Her parents had even specifically produced her birth certificate proving that she was 16 (proving that she's not an adult) and the ruling clergy of the town of NEKA (the town where she was hung) forged papers and insisted that in fact she was 22and that that was enough reason to hang her.

NOT EVEN her parents' word for their daughter's age was acceptable to them because when these characters put their mind to it, they will falsify anything they want in order to justify heinous acts...just like all the "stories" they've woven around the death of the brave Ziba Kazemi!

FP: Ms. Zand-Bonazzi, why does the male get lashes and the girl gets executed? What is the psychology here?

Zand-Bonazzi: Well, according to the Islamic Republic of Iran's interpretation of the Shari'a (I don't know how it's interpreted or done in Arab countries) a woman is automatically the seductress, however young and innocent. According to them, a man, no matter how old and promiscuous, is considered to be a "victim."

Now, quite a few facts about this poor young girl has come to light. First of all she was visibly mentally unwell (I guess bi-polar because by all accounts she wasn't retarded or dysfunctional; she defended herself at the so-called trial ) She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims. I've also heard charges (which I had suspected would be the story) that the Mullah judge, Hadji Rezai, who was also the proud executioner, had in fact wanted her for himself as a "temporary wife" and because either she or her parents had refused him, he had become enraged and had turned against her and falsified her age as 22, so that he could execute her.

It can be claimed, of course, that this is but an isolated instance. But note that this is justified under Shari law in Iran.

If that doesn't send a tingle of concern up the Left's leg, nothing will.

Link

Are you sure Hillary Lost??

Wish I had said this.

UPDATE AT 7:02 A.M. ET: From The Politico: Gregory B. Craig, a well-known Washington lawyer who quarterbacked President Bill Clinton’s impeachment defense, has been chosen White House counsel by President-elect Barack Obama, according to Democratic officials.

COMMENT: And Rahm Emanuel is chief of staff. And Hillary may go to the State Department. You know, all they need is that chubby girl with the blue dress... No, no, no, I did not write that. I absolutely did not.

Nasa screws up..... again

The man made global warming hoax gets more outrageous every day.

It is obvious Nasa needs new leadership, or maybe some eyes in its belly...

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record......

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

Obama is black and you must vote for him.

That's a rather obvious statement. And even though his mother was white, he has self-identified himself as black. Nothing wrong with that and it is just another obvious fact, but I want to get rid of the "half white" arguments.

He also was Muslim. He was identified as such by both his fathers and went to a Muslim school. That he converted to, if not main stream Christianity, at least the Black Liberation Theology sect of it is a fact. I mention this to set aside the arguments that he is Muslim.

He has a Muslim name. And if it is not "Muslim," it is certainly a very common name in Muslim societies and culture, just as Paul Richard White is an "American" name and would be recognized as such in any Muslim country/society or culture, although I doubt Richard could be elected to anything... (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

He also associated with self identified terrorists, attended a Black Liberation Theology Church and made enough gaffes on the campaign trail that most candidates would have been sunk. I refer to his "57 states" and "clinging to their religion and guns" statements. And even more, we had his various declarations of socialism both in the campaign and before.

None of it stuck. It wasn't that he was the "teflon" candidate, it was that he was the "we know but don't care" candidate. He adroitly played the race card himself by declaring that "they" will tell you I am "different" "don't look the same as those guys on a $5.00 bill..." That worked so well that the Left claimed that even mentioning his association with Ayers was racist..and they were taken seriously.. And even though he was on video declaring that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea, his followers would argue that he didn't say it... and get away with it.

And perhaps his master stroke was telling the world that we shouldn't call him Hussein because that reminded people of Muslims and he wasn't a Muslim... And no one pointed out that, if calling him Hussein was a problem, wouldn't Barack Obama also yield the same problem? And that morphed quickly into calling him Hussein was racist, even though no race is involved with members of the Islamic faith.

Some have noted that he received 95% plus of the black vote, and that is factual. But in that he is not all that different than John Kerry was in 2004. But what must be remembered is that although the percentage is close, in raw numbers the black vote was much larger than in 2004. And then when you look at the primaries, Democrat against Democrat, he still received around 95% of the black vote. Without race trumping gender, which it always will on the Left, it might very well be Madame Present-elect.

But even including the increased registration of blacks he still required white votes. And he got them, as he did the black vote, because, first and foremost, he was a black candidate. Because of that all his short comings were not only forgiven, they weren't even allowed to be discussed.

What we had there was the flowering of twenty plus years of the Leftist America Bad crowd's continual insistence that a black man could not be elected and if you voted against one you were a racist. His background, his lack of experience, his obvious socialist/Marxist leanings made no difference, just as the fact that McCarthy was correct, there were communists in the government, made no difference. To be acceptable you had to condemn McCarthy and now find Hussein wonderful, or at least so in public.

The amazing thing now is watching the pundits all try to guess how he will govern. They all talk of the "center" and how he shouldn't "repeat" Bill Clinton's mistake of trying to do too much too soon. What nonsense. He has started on the Left and he will go farther to the Left, all the time claiming that he is only doing what needs to be done.

His hands will be as clean as any Chicago Politician.

It is the ward heelers who do the dirty work.

In the leftie blogs and on talk radio you can start to see and hear complaints that he isn't moving fast enough with "change."

Be patient little ones, be patient.

Just as his race made no difference to most of those who voted against him, race will continue to have an effect on many of those who voted for him.

The question that is yet to be answered is how far they will support unpopular policies before he becomes what I and many others see him as..... just another man.

Palin 2012

We have entered the era of the continual campaign.

I hope Palin does run in 2012.

It will be fun, fun, fun.

Martin and Bush

As is the sometimes case, Weeder Gander returns to embarrass himself. This is his comment re the post showing Hussein speaking into the wrong end of a phone.

Actually, Obama has a way to go before reaching the following heights(or depths, YMMV).

For eight years George W. Bush has been many a comedian and cartoonist's wet dream, an easy target, a sitting duck. You're big if the world knows you by your first name (Elton, Madonna, Osama); bigger still if an initial will suffice. “W”. “Dubya”; from the moment Clinton staffers allegedly removed the letter w from the White House typewriters, Bush was the butt of the joke. He played the part of the imbecile brilliantly: just when you thought it couldn't get any better, it didn't.

As Steve Martin said, some people have a way with words, while others have not way. Bush's pronouncements were an embarrassment of glitches. There were the words - “nucular” instead of “nuclear”, “vulcanise” for “Balkanise” - and the Bush phrases (“I know how hard it is to put food on your family”; and “Our enemies ... never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we”). Others were perhaps apocryphal (“The trouble with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur”). It was an easy style to parody, the set-ups and pay-offs a comedian's stock-in-trade (“I have a message for those suicide bombers: we're gonna find you”).

Visually, he was the full package: the awkward body language, the elbows sticking out as he walked, as if he was carrying two sheep under his arms (“I come from Texas. I'd look stupid carrying one”). There were the features. The simian face, so beautifully caricatured by Gerald Scarfe and The Guardian's Steve Bell - all sticking-out ears, mad eyes and chimpanzee mouth, occasionally extended into a windsock pout. The contrast between a position of global power and the evident confusion behind those eyes gave him an air of permanent irony. Is this guy for real? Where does the original end and the parody begin? That upside-down book, those binoculars with lens-caps on: real or fake?

Then there was his clumsiness - his propensity for embarrassing entanglement with anything from bicycles to pretzels to Middle Eastern countries.

Bush is apparently disarmingly funny: a friend from his oil-trading days told me that he would answer the phone to irate investors wondering where their oil was with a cheery “Dryhole Bush here!” The self-deprecation is appropriate. As Dame Edna said to Jeffrey Archer: “If you can't laugh at yourself, you're missing out on the joke of the century.”

Ah yes, Poor George...

Yale graduate, fighter pilot, Harvard MBA, twice governor of Texas, twice President of the United States...

Yes indeed, poor George.

And who comes to praise this man? Why it is the honorable Steve. A comic of some talent who made us laugh with arrows that didn't go through his head. A movie actor in such memorable films as "The Three Amigos" and "Planes Trains and Automobiles." There is no doubt that such experiences over shadow all else and make him a commentator of such renown that everyone else quakes in his presence.

What made this man so great? Was it his experience working summers at Disneyland? His studies in drama at Santa Anna Junior College? Perhaps it was his days at Long Beach State before he transferred to UCLA and dropping out at the tender age of 21...
Yes. It must have been these experiences, not to mention working at Knots Berry Farm, that made him such a social icon that other mortals wait for his every word.

I mean he has so much experience in the issues of life and death... Just commuting in the LA Basin is in itself worthy of.... well...... worthy of something..

Yes, Dear Steve is such an example of the countless others who, because they play a hero, think they are. Those who pretend to fly a jet fighter criticize someone who did... Yes Gollywood has so many fine examples of manhood for our children to model themselves after. Why, I hardly know where to begin.

So yes, poor George. Speaking in a language that the country understood while doing things that most in Gollywood hated him for he was attacked for 8 years and eventually, if not destroyed, gravely wounded.

History will judge him, how we do not know, but I think it will judge him well. He sought to defend the country and did his duty as he saw it. As for what history will say about those who couldn't carry his briefcase but who thought themselves his betters, we do not know because 20, 30 years from not one in a thousand will even recognize their names.

And that is a sad thing to say about a profession that claims to not care what is said about them.... as long as you spell their name right.