This is one big reason:

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

The poor, persecuted jihadist somehow suffered a fat lip during his capture in Iraq. Now three of the troops who captured him are facing courts-martial. I won't say that words fail me, but the ones that come to mind are less than suitable for a family audience. If this is how America proposes to treat the best of our best in the Age of Obama, we may as well end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—now.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:56 AM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 25 November 2009 8:15 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

So now Barack Obama is claiming that he'll "finish the Afghanistan job." Sorry, but I just don't believe him. A guy whose sole preoccupation seems to be the elaboration of an "exit strategy" can hardly have much interest in winning the war. I say this more in sorrow than in anger, but the United States is going to lose in Afghanistan. With the commander-in-chief we have now, victory simply isn't possible.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:23 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

You have to love the World Wide Web. This morning I sat down at my computer, brought up my home page and the first item that caught my eye was this:

Ham Hits Paula Deen in Face

Check it out if you want. I'm not going there…

Posted by tmg110 at 8:07 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

For a long time now it’s been fashionable to believe that global warming is a scientific fact—that “the debate is over,” as Al Gore puts it—and that global warming skeptics are just a bunch of right-wing fundamentalist kooks. What is fashionable, however, is not necessarily true.

Ten years of global cooling have somewhat smothered the fires of the global warmists, so much so that nowadays they tend to prefer the term “climate change.” That’s a much more convenient marketing label, since it covers not only warming but cooling and all other dynamic climactic conditions. After all, there are many dollars and numerous scientific reputations at stake in the debate over climate change. Ten years of cooling can’t be allowed to mess up such a sweet deal as the global warming/climate change mob has created for itself.

So if the facts become inconvenient, then the facts must be tweaked, manipulated or just plain suppressed. And that, it appears, is exactly what’s been happening on the global warming front. For instance:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

That’s what’s known as falsifying data. Then there’s this:

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !

That’s what’s known as suppressing debate.

These and many, many more damning emails and documents come from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (United Kingdom), courtesy of an unidentified hacker. All in all they constitute evidence of perhaps the greatest scientific fraud ever: a systematic attempt to distort scientific data, manipulate facts and silence critics of global warming theory. And when you think of the enormous sums of money—including US taxpayer dollars—that have been poured into global warming research, the implications are huge. Already there are calls for a congressional investigation.

As a candidate, Barack Obama made a big deal about his devotion to “good science.” How interesting it will be to watch his administration’s reaction to this burgeoning scandal.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Though it's often been said that progressives have never met a tax they didn't like, I thought of one the other day that would certainly trigger their gag reflex: a tax on abortions? The money raised could be used to provide health care for those children fortunate enough to have survived the process of, er, choice.

If my idea seems impractical, recall that the Democratic health care "reform" plans on the table propose taxing cosmetic surgery, medical devices, health insurance and heaven knows what else. What possible objection could there be to taxing abortion—besides the fact that it would make progressives' heads explode?

Posted by tmg110 at 8:53 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Attorney General Eric Holder was less than impressive in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Writing for the Weekly Standard, Mary Katharine Ham notes that senators received his comments with a certain skepticism:

Holder's assertion that "failure is not an option" in these prosecutions raised senatorial eyebrows and snickers from the crowd. "Well, that's an interesting point of view," said Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.). Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) added, "I don't know how you can say failure is not an option. I'm a farmer, not a lawyer, but it seemed to me ludicrous."

Ludicrous is the word. Even more ludicrous is the alacrity with which Barack Obama's progressive base has embraced this travesty of justice. Well, I suppose if they think that it might make the Bush Administration look bad, they'll swallow anything—even Eric Holder's Manhattan show trial.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:04 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 23 November 2009 7:18 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

For Andrew Sullivan, 9/11 proved a beneficial reality check. The scales fell from his eyes, suddenly he could see the world as it was, and since he wasn’t your standard-issue conservative, he had many interesting things to say via his blog, “The Daily Dish.”

But it didn’t last. When he discovered that war is a messy business, and that compassionate conservatism didn’t necessarily include acquiescence in same-sex marriage, Sullivan turned on President Bush. He began to decry the Bush Administration’s “torture regime.” He grew increasingly strident in his denunciations of what he now calls “late degenerate Republicanism.” He supported John Kerry in 2004. And so on and so forth. But what really drove him over the screaming edge of madness was the advent of Sarah Palin.

Now you can plausibly argue that Palin is a political lightweight who wasn’t really qualified to be vice president. Of course, that might raise a question as to whether Barack Obama, whom Andrew Sullivan supports and whose resume is scarcely more impressive than Palin’s, is qualified to be president. But never mind that. Sullivan’s hatred of Palin has no foundation in reality. Why he’s decided that she is the Antichrist is a psychological question I’m not qualified to answer—though I have my suspicions. But I do know that his hatred has turned him into a kook, for at its heart is the irrational belief that Palin’s fifth child, the one with Down’s Syndrome, is not really hers at all. Sullivan believes that Palin faked her fifth pregnancy. He really does. The whole business was a conspiracy, you see. And now that Palin’s book is out, Sullivan is on the case:

Anyway, we’re done now. And I hope to be up half the night trying to write a post on the great mystery of the stories about Trig, stories that have bedeviled the blogosphere and many others for months. There is no proof here of anything, but there is a much more nuanced and detailed narrative of the events (especially now we have Palin’s first considered version of the events since the campaign) that when taken together has definitely helped illuminate what was once obscure and, well, bizarre. Believe it or not, it makes a little more sense now.

Maybe it makes a little more sense to you, Andrew, but to me you sound like one of those crazy monster-shouters one occasionally spots in bus stations. Crash. Burn.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:21 AM EST

Updated: Friday, 20 November 2009 8:35 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Given the realities of the world in which we live, it was surreal for human rights groups to complain, as they did, that the late, unlamented Saddam Hussein's trial and execution did not meet international standards of jurisprudence. What could these standards be? If Saddam had received a fifteen-minute drumhead court-martial, with  the gallows immediately to follow, he would have received a far more generous measure of justice than he afforded to his countless victims. But the business of modern human rights groups is to make the perfect the enemy of the good. If in the process a deserving creature like Saddam Hussein is assisted to dodge his appointment with the hangman, well, that's just too bad.

I was reminded of Saddam's trial yesterday as I watched Attorney general Eric Holder stumbling through his testimony. To call him incoherent would be an understatement—just listen to this exchange between Holder and Senator Lindsey Graham. It's all too obvious that the Attorney General has not grasped the implications of his decision to try five 9/11 terrorists in a US civilian court. Chief among them is the melancholy fact that they will not lack for ardent defenders among American progressives—the same people, in many cases, who wrung their hands over the fate of kindly old Uncle Saddam. And the legal protocols of a US federal courtroom will give them plenty of opportunity to gum up the works.

Holder asserted that "failure is not an option" in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his associates. But of course it's always a possibility—unless, that is, the fix is in. The Attorney General seems to be trying to deflect criticism of his decision by intimating that guilty verdicts are a certainty. Just you watch the human rights mob jump on that. I have trouble suppressing the thought that Eric Holder is an idiot of the purest ray serene.

Perhaps the solution would be to try KSM & Co. in an Iraqi court. All things considered, the Iraqis disposed of Saddam Hussein's case with dispatch and a satisfying finality.

Posted by tmg110 at 7:14 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

In an administration that harbors more than its share of freaks, geeks, kooks, goons and poltroons, Attorney General Eric Holder is a standout. He got off to a great start by opining, in connection with the issue of race, that America is "a nation of cowards." Then he tried to throw the CIA under the bus over the bogus issue of "torture." Now he's planning to try five 9/11 terrorists—in a civilian court in New York City.

Others have analyzed the legal and moral hazards of his decision. I just want to go on record as noting that it's also gigantically stupid. Let's see now: Obama's poll numbers continue their slide,he can't make up his mind what to do about Afghanistan, the stimulus is a bust, the economy is sputtering, unemployment has achieved double digits, the American people hate health care "reform"—and now this! It's as if the Obama Administration has fallen prey to a political death wish. Well, as a conservative I can only say, "Thank God for Eric Holder!"

Posted by tmg110 at 8:21 AM EST

Updated: Thursday, 19 November 2009 7:45 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Now here's a piece of advice that I'm sure the Democrats will ignore:

Health care reform will fail to achieve its promise of affordable access to medical care unless the nation's physician workforce is substantially expanded to meet the demand that newly insured patients will place on an already over-burdened system.

A comprehensive strategy for growing the physician workforce – as well as other allied health professionals such as nurses and physicians' assistants – should be developed and supported with a federal investment at the same time health insurance is expanded to cover millions of additional people.

Without this, gaining access to prompt medical care for all patients will become even more difficult. There will be longer wait times for appointments, less face time with a physician and, in all likelihood, delayed diagnoses leading to more expensive treatment and increased risk of complications. One need only look at the experience of Massachusetts, where the adoption of universal health coverage has intensified the physician shortage.

So says Timothy P. White, chancellor of the University of California, Riverside. But what are the chances that the Obama Administration and congressional Democrats would be willing to add to the short- and long-term costs of health care "reform" by spending major dollars to increase the number of doctors? The numbers look alarming enough already, without a whole bunch of new physicians sending in claims for payment. No, Mr. White, if health insurance is to be made universally available by government fiat, then health care must be severely restricted. That is what is known as an economic reality.

Posted by tmg110 at 8:08 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink