EUROPEAN DEMOGRAPHICS: DOOMED

SUNDAY UPDATE: A DAY LATER AND GLENN POSTS ON THE STORY.

NYTIMES:

"... You can’t keep going with a completely upside-down age distribution, with the pyramid standing on its point. You can’t have a country where everybody lives in a nursing home.”

EUROPE IS FAST BECOMING A CONTINENTAL NURSING HOME.

BILL CLINTON CAUGHT SOLICITING ANAL SEX

JUST KIDDING. MORE HERE.
ROUND UP HERE.

IS A PREEMPTIVE ATTACK AGAINST IRAN IMMINENT?

IS A PREEMPTIVE ATTACK AGAINST IRAN IMMINENT? Maybe.

1 - Al Jazeera:

"Iranian Threat" on Mullen's Israel Visit Agenda

Speculation is growing in Washington that Israel is exerting pressure on the United States to launch a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. US m (more)

Speculation is growing in Washington that Israel is exerting pressure on the United States to launch a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. US military chief Admiral Michael Mullen will be arriving for an official visit to Israel in the coming days for discussions on the Iranian threat, the US Department of Defense confirmed on Wednesday. Mullen, said the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, left the US on Tuesday "to go overseas to visit counterparts as well as combatant commands, and Israel is not his only stop."

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell tried to play down the report, saying the trip had been on the schedule for "months." "I believe this is a routine opportunity for Chairman Mullen to engage his counterpart in Israel on military-to-military matters, as he does in much of his travels around the world," Morrell said.

"I will say this, though: Obviously, when Chairman Mullen goes to Israel and speaks with the Israelis, they will no doubt discuss the threat posed by Iran, as we discuss it in this building, in other buildings in this town."

2 - AFP:

The chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards has issued a new warning against Israel not to attack it, saying the Jewish state is well within range of its missiles, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

"This country (Israel) is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime -- despite all its abilities -- cannot confront it," General Mohammad Ali Jafari told the conservative daily Jam-e Jam.

"There is the possibility that by attacking Iranian nuclear sites the enemy wants to delay our nuclear activities, but any interruption would be very short since Iranian scientific ability is different from that of Syria and Iraq."

His comments came after US media reported that more than 100 Israeli warplanes staged a training exercise with Greece earlier this month to prepare for a possible long-distance strike and as a warning to Tehran.

Iran has defied UN sanctions and international demands by pressing ahead with its disputed uranium enrichment programme, which both Washington and Israel fear would be used to build a nuclear weapon.

Tehran denies wanting the bomb, and says its nuclear ambitions extend only to generating electricity for a growing population.

Parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani, formerly Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, weighed in on Saturday and said the country was ready for anything.

"Iran is always ready for any kind of action," Larijani was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.

Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, a former defence chief, said in an interview published in the Russian press on Wednesday that Iran would be "annihilated" if it tried to attack Israel.

But, he said, "we are not planning any attack against Iran."

Meanwhile, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, discussed Iran in Israel on Saturday with his counterpart, General Gaby Ashkenazi, Israeli military radio reported.

The talks came amid speculation that Israel is seeking Washington's tacit approval to strike Tehran's nuclear programme, but the Pentagon said earlier this week that the meeting had been scheduled for some months.

• ALL THIS ON THE HEELS OF JUNE'S MAJOR/HUGE IAF/IDF EXCERCISE...
• MORE AT CARL'S PLACE.

STAY TUNED...

THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SCOOPS INSTAPUNDIT, HOT AIR AND SAMIZDATA - AGAIN

HERE.

DELAHUNT TYPICAL OF THE LEFT RUNNING TODAY'S DEMOCRATS: MORE HATEFUL TOWARD THE GOP THAN MARXISTS OR JIHADISTS

GOOD POST WITH A GOOD THREAD OVER AT HOT AIR: DELAHUNT IS BACKPEDALING.

I added my two cents - namely this:

Never forget that Delahunt is a big supporter of Chavez, too. Chavez: the anti-American Marxist who Ayers also loves. Who Ahmadinejad loves. Who the Kennedy clan loves.

Here's a reminder from the Boston Globe:

US Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a leading foreign policy voice in the Democratic Party, will endorse Barack Obama for president today, saying he believes the senator will repair the image of the United States overseas.

"If Barack Obama is elected president, I daresay America will present a new face to the world, will restore, simply by his election, hope - not just within the United States, but from all corners of the world, that America's claim to moral authority is back on track and that our leadership in world affairs will see a renaissance," Delahunt told the Globe.

... Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start, Delahunt noted, while veteran lawmakers voted to authorize force. Delahunt said he was also influenced by Obama's stated willingness - criticized by the Clinton campaign - to meet with rogue world leaders. Delahunt has met with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, negotiating a deal for home heating oil for his constituents from a Latin American leader who once referred to President Bush as "the devil."

Delahunt's backing has elevated significance for Obama, who is seeking to convince voters he would be able to deal with myriad foreign policy challenges after just three years in the Senate. The Massachusetts lawmaker is a prominent member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and was selected to represent the Congress at the UN General Assembly in September.

Scum like Delahunt don't deserve the privilege of being Americans, let alone serving in the Congress.

He should be tarred and feathered, and sent to live in Cuba or Zimbabwe or Iran - or ANY other socialist "utopia".

Ditto Obama.

Vote accordingly.

POLL: 74 PERCENT SUPPORT OFFSHORE DRILLING

Three in four likely voters - 74 percent - support offshore drilling for oil in U.S. coastal waters and more than half (59 percent) also favor drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.

A majority of likely voters across the political spectrum support offshore oil drilling, with vast majorities of Republicans (90 percent) and independents (75 percent) in favor of drilling for oil off U.S. coastal waters more than half of Democrats (58 percent) also said they favor offshore drilling. Republicans (80 percent) and political independents (57 percent) are much more likely to favor drilling for oil in ANWR than Democrats (40 percent).

The telephone survey of 1,113 likely voters nationwide was conducted June 12-14, and carries a margin of error of plus or minus 3.0 percentage points

More here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

The Can't Do Society

Excerpts from Victor Davis Hanson below. There is much truth in what he says but I disagree with his use of "We". Why should Americans in general and conservatives in particular take the blame for what Leftists have wrought?

We have become a nation of second-guessing Hamlets. Shakespeare warned us about the dangers of "thinking too precisely." His poor Danish prince lost "the name of action," as he dithered and sighed that "conscience does make cowards of us all."

With gas over $4 a gallon, the public is finally waking up to the fact that for decades the United States has not been developing known petroleum reserves in Alaska, in our coastal waters or off the continental shelf. Jittery Hamlets apparently forgot that gas comes from oil -- and that before you can fill your tank, you must take risks to fill a tanker......

We are nearing the seventh anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center. Its replacement -- the Freedom Tower -- should have been a sign of our determination and grit right after September 11. But it is only now reaching street level. Owners, renters, builders and government have all fought endlessly over the design, the cost and the liability.

In contrast, in the midst of the Great Depression, our far poorer grandparents built the Empire State Building in 410 days -- not a perfect design, but one good enough to withstand a fuel-laden World War II-era bomber that once crashed into it.

Despite unsophisticated 19th-century architectural and engineering science, not to mention legions of snooty French art critics, the Eiffel Tower in Paris was finished in a little over two years and is as popular as ever well over a century later.

In my home state of California, we spent a decade arguing over the replacement for portions of the aging and earthquake-susceptible San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Now that the design has finally been agreed to, it will be several years before it is finished. That's quite a contrast to the original bridge that was completed in just over three years.

California is also in yet another predictable drought and ensuing water shortage. Despite strict conservation and new water-saving technology, we simply don't have enough water for households, recreation, industry and agriculture. Building new dams, reservoirs and canals, you see, would apparently be considered unimaginative and relics of the 20th century.

The causes of this paralysis are clear. Action entails risks and consequences. Mere thinking doesn't. In our litigious society, as soon as someone finally does something, someone else can become wealthy by finding some fault in it. Meanwhile a less fussy, more confident world abroad drills, and builds nuclear plants, refineries, dams and canals to feed and fuel millions who want what we take for granted. In our present comfort, Americans don't seem to understand nature. We believe that our climate-controlled homes, comfortable offices and easy air and car travel are just like grass or trees; apparently they should sprout up on their own for our benefit.

Americans also harp about the faults of prior generations. We would never make their blunders -- even as we don't seem to mind using the power plants, bridges and buildings that they handed down to us.

Finally, high technology and the good life have turned us into utopians, fussy perfectionists who demand heaven on earth. Anytime a sound proposal seems short of perfect, we consider it not good, rather than good enough. Hamlet asked, "To be, or not to be: that is the question." In our growing shortages of infrastructure, food, fuel and water, we've already answered that: "Not to be!"

More here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

WILL THE EU REGISTER BLOGGERS?

Marianne Mikko, Estonian Member of the European Parliament, has had the idea approved by the Culture Committee. Parliament will address the issue on the 22nd of September.

WALL-E: EFT-WING ECO-PROPAGANDA

HOT AIR LINKS TO A RAVE: BEST MOVIE EVER! OR TEN YEARS.

WHATEVER.

BOTTOM-LINE:

FROM THE REVIEWS I'VE READ, THE PREMISE IS LEFT-WING ECO-PROPAGANDA MEANT TO BRAINWASH OUR YOUTH INTO BUYING INTO ANTI-CO2 CRAP AND AGW.

EUSSR EXPOSED: EU MEP's CAUGHT RED-HANDED IN MUST SEE VIDEO!

SATURDAY UPDATE:

• A DAY LATER AND INSTAPUNDIT AND HOT AIR NOTICE THE STORY, TOO.
• PROVING ONCE AGAIN THAT TAB IS THE PLACE TO BE.
• REGULAR READERS KNOW WE SCOOP THE BIGGIES ALL THE TIME.
• WE DON'T FOLLOW WE LEAD.
• SPREAD THE WORD.
• BLOGROLL US!

VIA EU REFERRENDUM:

• THE EU IS A FRAUD OF A TRAVESTY OF A SHAM OF A MOCKERY OF A FRAUD DRESSED UP AS ENLIGHTENED TRANS-NATIONALISM.
• NOT ONLY MUST THE LISBON TREATY BE TRASHED, SO MUST THE EU PARLIAMENT.
• THE WHOLE DAMN ENTERPRISE IS NOTHING BUT A BLACK HOLE OF CORRUPTION AND SOCIALISM.

PAKISTAN AND TALIBAN TO FACE OFF OVER PESHAWAR

FT:

The Pakistani government has asked its military to get ready to launch attacks on Taliban strongholds around Peshawar, the northern city, amid warnings the militants were preparing to seize control of the town, said a government official.

Witnesses have reported sighting trucks of Taliban militants armed with assault rifles driving in to neighbourhoods around Peshawar...

IMHO: WITH NATO KILLING THEM AT THE FASTEST PACE IN SEVEN YEARS, AND NOW PAKISTAN JOINING THE FIGHT, THE TALIBAN WILL END UP LIKE AQ OF IRAQ AND MOOKIE VERY SOON.

OBAMA GOES TO IRAQ... SOON

Telegraph:

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, is to fly to Britain next month as part of an ambitious foreign trip that will also take him to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as to France and Germany.

Only skeleton details of Mr Obama's trip have been agreed but an announcement of an outline programme is expected over the weekend.

"You will be hearing something very soon," a senior Obama aide told The Telegraph.

... Mr Obama, 46, has not been to Iraq since 2004, a fact that his opponent John McCain, 71, the presumptive Republican nominee and a regular visitor to Baghdad, points out frequently. ...

Mr Obama has visited Downing Street once briefly during a Congressional trip.

On a previous trip to Britain in 1996, he was a guest at the wedding of his half-sister Auma, who has since moved back to Kenya, in Bracknell and went his brother-in-law's stag night in Wokingham.

IT'S ABOUT TIME HE WENT TO IRAQ!

BTW: DID YOU CATCH THAT BIT ABOUT HIS HALF-SISTER?

HIS HALF-SISTER!?
WHOA.
HOW COULD THAT BE!?

OH YEAH: HIS FATHER WAS EITHER A POLYGAMIST OR A BIGAMIST OR... WHATEVER. NYMAG:

Due mostly to his father, who had children by four women, Obama has seven living half-siblings (one he had never met died in 1984). He’s tight with two of them. The first is Maya Soetoro-Ng, his younger half-sister, the child of Obama’s mother and Lolo Soetoro, her Indonesian second husband. Maya stayed with Obama’s mother after she divorced Lolo, and she has recently taken time off from teaching high school in Honolulu to make appearances at her brother’s campaign stops. The second, Auma Obama, is Obama’s older half-sister, the child of Barack Sr. and his first wife in Kenya.

I'M GONNA TAKE A LOT OF HEAT FOR THIS BUT I'M GONNA PUT IT OUT THERE:

IS THIS THE KIND OF FAMILY WE WANT IN THE WHITE HOUSE? WITH NON-JUDEO-CHRISTIAN HALF-BROTHERS AN HALF SISTERS ALL OVER THE FREAKIN' THIRD WORLD!?!?

KERRY WAS JUST A PSEUDO-FOREIGNER - A PSEUDO FRENCHIE-WANNABE.
BUT HALF OF OBAMA'S FAMILY IS TRULY FOREIGN.

• THE WORST OF THE BUNCH IS OF COURSE IS MICHELLE - WHO IS AMERICAN.
• BUT, WITH ALL THESE HALF-BROTHERS AND SISTERS RUNNING AROUND, IS THE OBAMA FAMILY THE BLACK AFRICAN EQUIVALENT OF CLINTONESQUE WHITE TRAILER TRASH?

• HIS POP HAD FOUR WIVES. HIS MOM TWO NON-WESTERN HUSBANDS.
• HE WAS RAISED BY WHITE GRANDPARENTS - AND THEN HE JOINED A RACIST BLACK CHURCH.
• IT'S ALL TOO EFFED UP FOR ME; THOUGH IT EXPLAINS A LOT OF OBAMA'S PERSONALITY TRAITS --- NAMELY HIS ABILITY TO BE A CHAMELEON WHO THROWS PEOPLE UNDER THE BUSH AS SOON AS THEY BECOME A LIABILITY TIO HIS SOCIAL CLIMBING.

• CAN'T WE DO BETTER THAN THIS?
• AFTER ALL, HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE FORD FOUNDATION OR TO BECOME SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE UN.
• HE'S RUNNING TO BE THE NEXT POTUS AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN HISTORY AND THE DEFENDER OF THE FREE WORLD.
  
• JUST ASKING.

I KNOW THERE'LL BE A TORRENT OF ATTACKS AGAINST ME FOR POSTING ON THIS: IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE POTENTIAL FIRST FAMILY IS TOO WACKY AND TOO UN-AMERICAN AND TOO NON-WESTERN, THEN YOU MUST BE A RACIST.

HOW DARE I WANT A GOOD OL' AMERICAN FAMILY IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

BOTTOM-LINE: MCCAIN'S EXTENDED FAMILY IS BETTER THAN OBAMA'S.

MCCAIN IS A THIRD GENERATION NAVAL HERO.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

BLATANT HYPOCRITE: But Where's the Media on Obama's Gun Flip Flop??

It does not get any more blatant than this; on one of these two occasions, Barack Obama was lying. Period.

A) Today??? (emphasis mine):

"Obama Clarifies Position..."

Is that becoming a familiar headline, or what? I hope someone is compiling them all. Today, it was the Supreme Court's gun decision: "Obama clarifies position on D.C. gun ban":

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama Thursday sought to clarify his position on a Supreme Court ruling striking down a Washington gun ban. ***

When asked about his reaction, Obama disputed the one outlined earlier by his campaign, ABC News reported.

When a reporter noted in November that the District's handgun law was constitutional, Obama distanced himself from the campaign, the network reported.

"I don't know what my aide said but I've been very consistent, I teach constitutional law," Obama said. "What I said was that I believe Second Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don't think those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I've been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today."

Which is a ludicrous claim, even by Obama's standards. Here's an idea, though: maybe as part of this year's campaign, we could have a debate between Obama and his campaign staff;

or, B) February 11 of this year???:

So... AGAIN, for what, the 10th time since the campaign began, he throws another staffer under his Campaign Bus??? And they are actually buying it...

This is "a new kind of politics"???

('Meet the new boss, same as the Old boss...')

RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: HOT AIR LINKS TO KURTZ/WASH POST NOTICING THE MSM IS AWOL ON THIS HYPCRISY/FLIP-FLOP, AND ALSO POSTED A SIDE-BY-SIDE VIDEO OF OBAMA WRIGGLING.

AND DON'T MISS THIS MUST READ FROM DOUG: OBAMA'S SPEECHES NEED A BORN-ON DATE!

PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING - ON JUPITER AND SATURN

APOD:

The newest red spot is on the far left (west), along the same band of clouds as the Great Red Spot and is drifting toward it.

If the motion continues, the new spot will encounter the much larger storm system in August. Jupiter's recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.

SPACE.COM:

Both of Saturn's poles have surprising swirling hotspots that persist even through years of polar winter, a new study reveals. The hotspots are localized areas in Saturn's gaseous atmosphere over its poles that are considerably warmer than the surrounding air — they're actually about as warm as the atmosphere at Saturn's equator, said Leigh Fletcher of the University of Oxford.

The hotspot over the southern hemisphere was imaged by the Keck Observatories prior to arrival of the Cassini spacecraft, but the northern hemisphere has faced away from Earth for over a decade, so its hotspot was revealed only this year by Cassini.

Scientists had thought that solar irradiation might be generating the hotspot in the southern hemisphere (currently in its summer phase, facing the sun), but the existence of a similar hotspot in the northern hemisphere, which has been plunged in wintry darkness for many years, suggests that isn't the case.

Instead, dynamic processes in Saturn's atmosphere may create the hotspots, the new findings, detailed in the Jan. 4 issue of the journal Science, suggest, Fletcher says.

• COULD HOT STORMS ON JUPITER AND SATURN BE CAUSED BY MAN-MADE CO2?
• NOT POSSIBLE.
• MAYBE WHAT'S CAUSING IT ON THOSE TWO PLANETS IS WHAT CAUSED IT HERE, TOO?
• I SAY "CAUSED" - PAST TENSE - BECAUSE THE EARTH HASN'T WARMED SINCE 2001.

BOTTOM-LINE: AGW = BS.

COUNTRYWIDE IS ON OBAMA'S SIDE

• DODD WASN'T THE ONLY SENATOR INVOLVED IN SPONSORING LEGISLATION WHICH BENEFITED COUNTRYWIDE WHO GOT MONEY FROM COUNTRYWIDE.

• OBAMA DID TOO.

• MORE THAN DODD.

• OBAMA IS A CROOK AND A PHONY AND A HYPOCRITE.
• HE'S ON THEIR SIDE, NOT OURS.
  

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

THE GOP AND THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND VERSUS OBAMANOMICS

NYTIMES:

In the House, where Democrats held a series of four votes on energy policies before a weeklong Independence Day recess, Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, declared, “After today’s vote, the G.O.P. now officially stands for the Gas and Oil Party.”

In the Senate, where Republicans introduced a bill called the Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said: “Most Democrats still insist on trying to repeal the law of supply and demand. It’s a new economic theory. You might call it Obamanomics.”

• EVIDENTLY (SINCE WE KNOW HE HATES THE GOP), MASSACHUSETTS REP AND ULTRA-LIB MARKEY THINKS OIL AND GAS ARE BAD THINGS.
• I'D LIKE HIM TO FORGO USING THEM - AND TELL HIS CONSTITUENTS THAT MAKING THEM MORE EXPENSIVE IS A GOOD THING!
• OBAMA'S POLICIES OF RAISING TAXES ON ENERGY WOULD MAKE THINGS WORSE.
• THEY'D BE LIKE THROWING GASOLINE ON A FIRE.
• IF OBAMA IS ELECTED PRESIDENT, THEN HE WILL PROPOSE THEM AND CONGRESS WILL PASS THEM.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

A CANADA UPDATE

The Canadian double standard

As Mark Steyn has discovered, in Canada today you cannot say anything critical of Muslims without risking a summons to appear before a "human rights" tribunal. The same does not apply to Muslims, however. They can utter all the hate-speech they like:

"You know what is the really sobering thing about that ongoing terror trial in Brampton?

Clue: It's not that there was a plot to attack Canadian targets. And of course there was; the court has heard evidence up the ying-yang that there was just such an enterprise afoot. Was it the finest plot ever? Oh hardly. Were its members variously bumblers, what those who hang around courts call "yutes" or raving hotheads? Absolutely. But there was a plot.

It's not even the hate, chiefly for Jews and Americans, that one of the group leaders preached at the drop of a hat and the top of his lungs with almost magnificently ungrammatical, near-illiterate, Koran-ignorant hysteria. It's that he felt so free to preach it.

It's that he felt comfortable enough to hand out jihadist CDs outside at least one Toronto mosque and to occasionally turn up in combat fatigues at another. It's that he giddily talked to one of his alleged co-conspirators about the obligation to kill Jews whenever one finds them. It's that the leadership of the group regularly met at a half-dozen mosques in the GTA, usually on Fridays, the day of communal prayer. It's that within minutes of meeting Mubin Shaikh, a fellow Muslim-turned-CSIS informant-turned-paid-RCMP agent, he was openly verbally indulging his bloodlust and "recruiting" Mr. Shaikh: Their shared religion was enough.

Source

Another naughty Canadian

The lesbians could dish it out but they couldn't take it. So they went crying to Momma:

"A Canadian stand-up comedian will face a human rights tribunal hearing after a woman complained she and her friends faced a "tirade of homophobic and sexist comments" while attending one of his shows.

In a decision released this week, the B. C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled there is enough evidence to hear the case of Vancouver woman Lorna Pardy against Toronto comedian Guy Earle. Zesty's Restaurant in Vancouver, where the May 22, 2007, show took place, has also been named in the complaint.

Ms. Pardy could not be reached yesterday for comment. However, the tribunal's decision says she alleges she was discriminated against over her sex and sexual orientation when Mr. Earle made public comments "intended to humiliate her."

The ruling says Mr. Earle and Ms. Pardy "have very different versions of who was to blame for the incidents, how it came about and how it escalated." There is also a dispute over what role alcohol played in the incident.

"Mr. Earle does, however, admit that he used comments which he now regrets," says the tribunal. "Those admitted comments may go to establish discrimination."

Reached yesterday, Mr. Earle said he was the show's emcee when Ms. Pardy and two of her friends walked in, sat in the booth closest to the stage and began heckling him and other comics. "Two of them started making out, flipping me the bird and saying I hated lesbians," he said.

Mr. Earle was reluctant to repeat the remarks that led to the human rights complaint. "Everybody wants to know what I said, and I invite people to come see me on stage because you can't take it out of context. And that's exactly what's happened here. "The reader or the listener or whatever has no feeling for the environment of the comedy show that is triple-X, edgiest-show-in-town, controversial and offensive, so when you walk in there you're making an agreement to be a party to this controversial show."

"They were drunk, they were being jerks and I was very rude and visceral to them because, like I said, if you have a heckler what you want to do is put them in their place by offending them, so I tried to hit them where it hurts and the only thing I had to key on was the fact that they were lesbians. "I don't care if they're lesbians, heterosexuals, homosexuals or giraffes."

Mr. Earle said the complaint is an attack on comedians' right to perform. "I would never have expected it would get escalated to a philosophical battle." He added it's been more than 40 years since controversial U.S. comic Lenny Bruce was jailed for obscenity over his comic material-- "and we're still fighting the same battle. I know it's a fight I can never win. But I've got to keep fighting."

Source

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

How would Bambi handle another 9/11?

Charlie Black is getting rapped on the knuckles for this comment:

As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Of course. There's no reason to think that after a terrorist attack, Americans would prefer the leadership of a war veteran who's spent his entire career dealing with national security issues. There's every chance that with Americans dead and more attacks possible, they would turn to the former community organizer who, when asked about his military response to terrorist attacks, gives a lengthy answer listing every action except the military response:

Williams then turned to Sen. Barack Obama, second in the polls but gaining fast on the frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists," Williams said, "and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

The question was specifically focused on a military response, but Obama didn't talk about the military, or any use of force at all. "Well, first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans," Obama said. "And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack."

"The second thing," Obama continued, "is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, A, to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there; and B, to find out do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network."

The reference to "some action" might be interpreted as an endorsement of the use of force, but in the rest of his response, Obama softened even that notion. "But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast," he said. "Instead, the next thing we would have to do, in addition to talking to the American people, is making sure that we are talking to the international community. Because as has already been stated, we're not going to defeat terrorists on our own. We've got to strengthen our intelligence relationships with them, and they've got to feel a stake in our security by recognizing that we have mutual security interests at stake."

That was it. Obama's answer to a question of how, as commander-in-chief, he would change America's "military stance" in response to an attack by al Qaeda did not involve using the military.

Williams' question deserved a brief answer: "We find the perpetrators and kill them." Or, alternatively, "unleash hell." Or some variation of that.

No, of course, Black is wrong. The American people would eagerly want the guy whose foreign policy advisers contend that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts.

They'd love to have a commander in chief who erroneously claims that all of the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing have been brought to justice, and who praises the pre-9/11 approach to al-Qaeda terrorism, ignoring the fact that the attacks kept getting larger.

Source

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

OIL BUBBLE INSANITY CONTINUES: OIL TRADES ABOVE $140

Crude Oil $139.64 a barrel 2:29 PM ET 06/26/2008

In three months oil has gone up nearly 50%.

IT'S NOW TRADING ABOVE $140.

This is INSANE.

A BUBBLE.

Especially since bad macroeconomic news should be driving the price DOWN, not up: RECESSIONS WEAKEN DEMAND FOR ENERGY.

Even a weak dollar can't explain it all, as a weak dollar improves exports and can increase economic activity.

The only possible rational explanation is that market movers think an attack on Iran is imminent and that Iran's retaliations will cripple Gulf Oil.

Or that hedge-fund trading formulas have a skewed premise - that tells them to buy oil when the dollars weakens as if oil was a safe hedge.

It is not: if the USA goes into recession, then the world does - and global oil demands declines.

REPEAT: oil should NOT be above $100, and probably should be about $70.

Oil began it's recent SURGE at the same time the US began it's SURGE into Iraq - which has been overwhelmingly successful.

It has gone UP UP UP ... FAST FAST FAST.

It must come down as fast, too.

Or faster.

It will, too.

Sooner than you think.

UPDATE: I HAVE POSTED THIS CHART BEFORE. IT SHOWS HOW OIL PRICES ARE HISTORICALLY SKEWED:

BRACE YOURSELF:

We’ve compared the spike in oil and other commodities like gold with the decline in the dollar since the fall of last year, and, up until recently, there was an outstanding correlation — going long oil, gold or other commodities was pretty clearly an effective way to short the dollar in an almost risk free environment. Something has changed, however, in recent days.

Since early April, gold and oil have moved in opposite directions. [GOLD IS THE RED LINE.] Gold’s price, in our view, has retreated as the market has judged, correctly, that the dollar’s decline is nearing an end for multiple sound reasons (a halt to interest rate cuts, global slow growth or recession, etc.). Meanwhile, oil’s price has become completely untethered from reality in an insane speculative frenzy, even versus other commodities (which have had their own bull markets).

It’s over, or at least coming to an end, in our opinion.

AND NOTE THAT THE DOLLAR IS NOT DROPPING AS FAST AS OIL IS SURGING - (SO CURRENCY ISSUES ARE NOT DRIVING THE OIL BUBBLE); HERE'S A DOLLAR-EURO CHART:



FROM MARCH TO MAY - AS OIL WENT UP 50%, THE DOLLAR WAS RELATIVELY STABLE ---- CHEAP, BUT STABLE.

SO I ARGUE IT'S A SPECULATIVELY FUELED BUBBLE.

AND IT WILL CRASH.

YES CRASH. THINGS GO DOWN MORE EASILY THAN UP. HERE'S WHY:

• TO GO FROM 100/BARREL TO 150/BARREL IS A 50% MOVE UP.
• BUT FROM 150/BARREL TO 100/BARREL IS ONLY A 30% DOWNWARD MOVE.
• 30% IS AN EASIER/QUICKER MOVE FOR A MARKET TO MAKE THAN 50%.
  

SO... IT WILL CRASH SOONER THAN YOU THINK.

ONE OF THESE TWO MEN DESERVES TO DIE BY LETHAL INJECTION...

... THE OTHER DESERVES "PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT".

Stevens' Dissent: Alternative Reality worthy of a High School Term Paper

OK... to be clear, now: we are talking about the man himself. right? The Spokesperson of the extra-Constitutionalist, counter-Constitutionalist "Eastern Bloc" of the Supreme Court, aka the Liberal Justices:

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens.

OK. so this is from Stevens' permanent contribution to the Court record, in the year's encore performance for the term. This is the Big Dissent of the 5-4 decision to actually UPHOLD the Constitution, for all future law graduates and historians, who will hang on every word--why did they do it, they will say?. You don't see Second Amendment cases like this very often. Today was a big deal.

And so all the buildup for the big moment... and then, this?? (link via Glenn Reynolds)

Wow.

Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.

I'd add that at 41 he refers to:

"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."

Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)

On the next page Perpich says that Congress in 1903 enacted the Dick Act, which created the "National Guard of the Several States." Footnote 11 of that opinion, referring to creation of the Guard, begins: "The Act of January 21, 1903, 32 Stat. 775, provided in part..." So I guess he didn't read the Perpich case, either, let alone verify the dates and who did what.

And none of the four signing onto this opinion, and none of their clerks, saw these items?

Well they are seeing them now. Heh.

All this because of President Ford's Nixon-guilt-trip. What an embarassment.

MCCAIN AND OBAMA ARE POLAR OPPOSITES

DEM REP HOPES AL QAEDA WILL KILL US GOVT OFFICIAL!

The Democrats must be getting really desperate. Now that Al Qaeda is being defeated in Iraq, they are lashing out wherever they can.

This video has to be seen, and even then it is hard to believe.

Bill Delahunt, the Democrat who represents the 10th Congressional District in Taxachusetts, was questioning David Addington, former counsel to the Vice President, and asked about "waterboarding." Mr. Addington explained that if Al Qaeda watches C-SPAN and might learn details it is best to keep from them.

Delahunt then said:

"I'm sure they [Al Qaeda] are watching, and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive."

Watch for yourself:



Is that unbelievable? A United States representative openly states that he hopes murdering terrorists will get a good look at an Administration counsel. As if he is inviting them to murder him.

Delahunt should be censured, impeached, expelled from the House and charged with attempting to aid and abet the enemy in a time of war. He should be tried for treason.

Don't bother with the comments, if you go to the home site of the video. It was posted by extreme leftists who are just as bad as Delahunt.

AL-JAZEERA REPORTS ON THE ISLAMIC SAUDI ACADEMY IN FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

I have previously posted about the Islamic Saudi Academy here at THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS.

Go HERE to see the MEMRI clip of Al-Jazeera's report on the Islamic Saudi Academy. At marker 2:28 on the clip, you will hear the word "madrassah," defined as follows by the American Heritage Dictionary:

A building or group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque.

Those who have read this web page by Daniel Pipes, also know about other connotations for the word "madrassah."

The Islamic Saudi Academy (a madrassah) is coming under long-needed scrutiny. At this point, a Google search of the school yields over 9000 hits, and the number of hits increases every day.

Predictably, Moslems are complaining about the scrutiny of the school, never mind ISA's broken promises about revising the offending textbooks as well as various other problems at the school. From the MEMRI transcript for the above-linked video:

[T]his is a nightmare for the families of the students enrolled in the academy. This pressure is exerted by several Congressmen, known for their great hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.

[...]

What should be said about a commission that some say is unconstitutional and contradicts the very meaning of its name? This commission [which recently issured the report on the textbooks] calls upon all countries of the world to respect freedom of religion there, while the commission itself violates this freedom on its own land.

Um, ISA supporters, remove the beam from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from another's eye.

UPDATED CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNS OF LIFE: Supreme Court Locates Second Amendment in Heller Case--DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional

UPDATE: Edited for clarity and readibility, and broadened to include an aside on the applicability of this decision to modern weapons technology.

Two steps towards tyranny in the last two weeks, but--today at least--one step towards the Law of the Land (via Allah):

Just across at SCOTUS Blog. 5-4, which means Kennedy was the deciding vote — or, if you prefer, Alito was the deciding vote. Would O’Connor or Harriet Miers have voted the same way? If nothing else, Bush at least delivered this.

Stand by for the opinion.

Update: The first AP report says the right extends to “self-defense and hunting.” And here’s an update. Hmmm:

The court’s 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

Update: Here’s the opinion at SCOTUS Blog. They’re getting hammered by Drudge so e-mail us if you can’t access it there and I’ll upload it elsewhere.

[.....]

As predicted the other day, this ruling did not necessarily affirm any type of weapon ought be available to the general population. But it does for the first time establish a precedent that the occasional need during civil unrest or collapse of institutions for "self regulated militias" does not preclude the individual's right to own "common" weapons for self defense. For now anyway, that particular argument is kaput.

And, (as was also predicted) Scalia did not infer that the 2nd Amendment granted any individual the right to any specific weapon, and he even went so far to say that it was reasonable to restrict certain "special" arms from the general public (WMD's is my own extreme example of this logic...).

On the other hand, in a circumstance where order might completely break down in the US today, e.g. due to some nuclear catastrophe or the detonation of a "pulse weapon" (a distinct possibility--especially with a President who appeases our Jihadist enemies and the states arming them); then a militia was envisioned as being arguably necessary by the Founders (and this was restated in today's opinion). If so, in our scenario, let's just say that armed drug lords and/or Hezbollah-equipped fighters (Chavez thugs, FARC types, Sandinistas etc.), armed with AK-47's were to come flowing across the border in an incursion or hostage-taking type scenario, to commit terror acts, or to otherwise try and fill a "disorder vaccum" which such a catastrophe might create; at this point the "need" for citizens to utilize its "militia" arguably ought to also include the Founders' intent: to be a sufficient deterrent to allow citizens to keep order and defend its society and families. Reading Scalia's opinion today, to me it at least implies that the intent for "militia" in such circumstances is that they at least be equipped with sufficient arms required for it to be an effective deterrent.

To the extent that an armed insurgency with hundreds or thousands of the most plentiful weapon on earth (i.e. AK-47's) could easily trample over a Constitutionally mandated "deterrent"--because the arms necessary to defeat our adversaries were restricted from our own citizens (and the "militia" they would form), it would render the Second Amendment's "self defense" deterrent virtually worthless.

This is clearly not the Founder's intent--and that is according to today's majority opinion. The needed restoration of order in such a circumstance is what Scalia explains is the very REASON that the Founders crafted and added in the "militia" preamble (see Scalia's quotes below).

As nice as they are in everyday situations for self defense--pistols and shotguns, e.g. are not likely to defeat foreign-trained adversaries armed with AK-47s in skirmishes or otherwise "equal" battle conditions...

To illustrate what I mean about the "intent", one must also understand the "arms parity" which was likely taken for granted at the time of the Founders: during the American Revolution and thereafter, the Continental Army (initially consisting of many individuals who joined variously-organized "militias" at the time with their own weapons) could be argued to have had then at least enough parity in selecting a "preferred firearm" (although arguably fewer cannons, etc. than the British had), that, when confronted by the British Regulars, the citizen militias' weaponry was sufficient to provide the intended deterrent force--i.e. to prevail over a tyrannical, but "modernly-armed" force that would otherwise establish a non-Constitutional authority or otherwise terrorize the citizenry.

In other words, many if not most citizens during the time of the crafting of the Constitution--especially those in the frontier areas--had virtually the same flintlock rifle as a standard weapon as arguably any armed force on earth at that time, including the British. For me anyway, this historical fact suggests that there still may be some grey area to be decided about just how weapon technology should play into this implied right, especially in light of today's ruling. What weapons available today (should Governmental restrictions be guided by such a rule) would serve a "militia's" Constitutionally implied purpose in the modern day, ie. to provide an effective deterrent to insurgency or attack under extraordinary circumstances?

I would argue that in order to be a true "deterrent" against an organized insurgency who arguably would not have the same constraints or their ability to utilize more advanced weaponry, should there not be some sort of balance found as to what other weapons might be appropriate to allow our law-abiding citizens ( presumably after background checks, proficiency tests, etc)--beyond handguns, shotguns, and single-fire rifles--in the event of a such a chaotic and life-threatening circumstance? (which arguably is more likely today even than it was during the Cold War...)

Obviously Scalia is not the sort likely to easily "invent" a broader interpretation and infer that it was the Founders' intent to give every American an automatic weapon--nor would I want him to. That after all is what the Judicial Activists do, for example, in Boumediene. But it does seem to me that Scalia has left enough of a crack in the anti-gun facade that future Courts may well be called on to rule on finer points of arms technology, for example should a Border State like Texas decide that such a deterrent might indeed be necessary to fulfill the Founder's intent for individuals (who would organize as the militia in such circumstances), is the State not entitled to pass a law that would allow its lawful citizens the wherewithal to provide a clear "deterrent" to such aggression?

Call it my own fascination for weaponry, but I think it is a valid question.

But do not get me wrong: today's ruling is great progress against the anti-gun lobby, without question: because the part of this case which most persons (including myself) were most concerned about was that Heller specifically was reviewed because a clarification on the connection between the "militia" preamble, and the operative clause of the Second Amendment "the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"--was being directly challenged by the lower courts' litigation.

And while--as noted above-- the 2nd Amendment does not specifically say what type of arms are within that "right", the Court has now held that this sweeping handgun ban clearly violates that 2nd Amendment right; not only that, but Scalia and the other "Constructionists" appear to have been at least persuasive to a majority that handguns often have been the only difference between the now affirmed individuals' right to self defense and an outcome that could ultimately cost that individual his life.

In effect, the court ruled specifically that the individual right did not depend on the "militia" preamble.

This in itself is miraculous, especially based on the other repugnant decisions which have come down this term. Perhaps the brilliance and persistence of Scalia, combined with his obvious knowledge of this topic, were enough to win the day. At the very least, the fickle Justice Kennedy (I am being kind today...) apparently was persuaded by Scalia's undeniable citation of historical precedent regarding the intent of the Second Amendment:

We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.

The debate with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, as with other guarantees in the Bill of Rights, was not over whether it was desirable (all agreed that it was) but over whether it needed to be codified in the Constitution. During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric. [See, e.g., Letters from The Federal Farmer III (Oct. 10, 1787), in 2 The Complete Anti-Federalist 234, 242 (H. Storing ed. 1981).] John Smilie, for example, worried not only that Congress’s “command of the militia” could be used to create a “select militia,” or to have “no militia at all,” but also, as a separate concern, that “[w]hen a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.” [2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 508–509 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (hereinafter Documentary Hist.). ]

Federalists responded that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people. [See, e.g., A Pennsylvanian III (Feb. 20, 1788), in The 26 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, To the Citizens of Virginia, Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution, Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556.]

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.

The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

(Emphases mine)

I am very relieved; in fact I may just go to the range later this afternoon to celebrate!

All in all this was a horrible term for the Court. But today, at least, there is a silver lining, and it is a pretty big deal.

But will that be enough if a Marxist Obama is allowed to put more Activists/Bench Legislators on the Court to overrule this precedent as the Activists have so casually ignored other precedent this year? Only if all the conservatives on the court (plus, presumably someone at least as fence-riding as Kennedy) would outlast any Democrat Administration. But even in this event, an opportunity to replace a retiring "Activist" with a Justice who understands his/her appropriate role within the Constitution: to interpret it and, not to AMEND it themselves with no input from the people or the President--is critical now more than ever, especially with all these 5-4 decisions, many of them indefensible and outrageous in regard to the actual Constitution that is our Social Contract.

This Court's term (even the "appropriate" rulings like today's) is a clear argument for just how critical the Presidency is--if for no other reason than: if there are no checks against a runaway Court, we could lose everything.

Obama's Court appointments would be like adding gasoline to the flames--he has already assured voters multiple times in the debates that he would appoint more Activists to the Court and to the Appeals Courts who would arguably ignore the terms of this "contract" between the Government and its citizens at any given time, on a whim or based on some sick notion of "consensus".

Therefore, even if there was no other reason to vote for John McCain (which some of my betrayed Conservative friends believe), after the unbelievable damage to our Liberty that this Court has inflicted over this term (while augmenting the "liberties" of our sworn blood enemies abroad to the level of "Constitutional rights"...), it follows that the President's role in appointing new Justices is one UNDENIABLE reason that McCain is really the only sane choice this year, that is if we have a hope in hell to keep our country from descending into the abyss of Judicial tyranny.

EHUD BARAK ZIGZAGS AGAIN

Well now, maybe this isn't too surprising, or shouldn't be. Just a day after Ehud Barak and the Labor party say they'd support a bill for dispersing the Knesset, they backtrack over the ostensible assurance that there will be primaries for a new leader in Kadima in a few months, which does little more than to give Ehud Olmert some more borrowed time. It says here:

The Labor-Kadima agreement does not specify when Olmert will actually step down from office, under the assumption that the primaries will produce another paty leader.

Politicians from the right and the left were quick to slam the deal. MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) criticized the Labor Party for allowing a prime minister under investigation of corruption charges to remain in power several additional months instead of replacing him with a "suitable" government immediately. One Likud Party spokesman said Labor chairman Ehud Barak "once again failed to take responsibility," a reference to the Defense Minister's broken promise to resign upon publication of the Winograd Report in January, 2008.

They are quite right, I'll say. Barak is no leader. Update: Netanyahu, much more of a leader than he'll ever be, has responded in an address to Olmert on how the dam of confidence has been broken.

Update 2: Olmert has announced that he'll run for reelection in the coming primary, much to the embarrassment of the Labor party. Well, I hope some of them are happy with how ridiculous they've made themselves look.

It's said that Shas holds the key to the government's survival. However, that's exactly why now, all eyes should be turned to them as well, because they are going to have to take responsibility.

AP's weird perspective on warfare in Afghanistan

The news agency which does not want to be quoted will be today. In a story in which 22 enemy are killed and the remaining enemy flea to Pakistan and no Afghan or coalition troops are killed the AP says:

Fighting between Taliban-led militants and security forces is surging, clouding hopes that the six-year, multibillion-dollar effort to stabilize the country will succeed any time soon.

The problem with this perspective is that it is divorced from the reality of warfare. Fighting is why it is called a war. What should be blazingly obvious is that the Taliban are losing this fight and every other engagement with coalition forces. The AP has this weird perspective that violence is the enemy of peace. They divorce the concept from the fighters. They made similar mistakes in Iraq where violence was used as a metric disembodied from keeping score on casualties and more importantly who controlled the real estate.

Any fair observation of the conflict in Afghanistan would note that the Taliban do not control real estate or people and they are losing all the fire fights. Because they are fighting an insurgency, the war may drag on, but the outcome is clear if we stay with it.... In contrast the Reuters story points to an even larger defeat for enemy forces.

U.S.-led coalition and Afghan forces killed up to 35 Taliban insurgents after the militants attacked two towns in eastern Afghanistan near the Pakistan border overnight, a police chief said on Wednesday.... About 100 Taliban insurgents attacked the towns of Gomal and Sarobi in Paktika province overnight, but fled when they were engaged by Afghan police supported by coalition troops, said provincial Police Chief Nabi Jan Mullah Khail.

Source

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

That birth certificate again

For some time now Just One Minute's commenter jmh, Polarik at Townhall and others have examined the "birth certificate" for Obama published on the Daily Kos site as well as the site Obama has established to respond to the "smears" against him. The documents are not identical and seem obviously phony. Israeli Insider confirms their suspicions:

It is now a certainty that the "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign as authentic is a photoshopped fake.....

Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider's previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet....

Janice Okubo, Director of Communications of the State of Hawaii Department of Health, told Israel Insider: "At this time there are no circumstances in which the State of Hawaii Department of Health would issue a birth certification or certification of live birth only electronically." And, she added, "In the State of Hawaii all certified copies of certificates of live birth have the embossed seal and registrar signature on the back of the document."

Why would Obama's anti-smear site itself rely on a phoney birth certificate? I can't imagine . Some have suggested it's to hide the fact that he was not a "natural born" U.S. citizen and is, therefore, ineligible to run. Maybe.

Source

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your roundup of Obama news and commentary at OBAMA WATCH

THE SENATOR FROM ADM

BESIDES BEING A TOOL OF THE CORRUPT CHICAGO MACHINE,
OBAMA IS IN THE POCKET OF ADM.
VIA GLENN.

DENMARK IS #1 - AGAIN!!!

It has been reported today that Denmark again leads the world in taxes! Ouch...

Take that you Swedes!!!

TELETHON FOR THE TROOPS

FROM THE FRONTLINES--hosted by Melanie Morgan and Michelle Malkin

An 8 hour internet telethon for the troops! Here are the details:

A team of patriotic leaders are working together in a historic undertaking with the goal of sending the largest single shipment of care packages to U.S. troops in American history. The care package drive will result in the shipment of not just 1,000 care packages—a feat accomplished by the Grand Ole Opry in October 2007. Organizers similarly won’t settle for just the 10,000 packages shipped as part of an impressive effort undertaken by the Nevada Girl Scouts. And they plan to surpass the efforts of the terrific organization, Operation Gratitude, which undertook a multi-day effort to pack and ship 50,000 care packages last year.

Move America Forward, the nation’s largest pro-troop organization, has launched this historic drive to rally Americans to show our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan just how much support they have from the American people back home.

The grand finale for the push will take place on June 26th when a Jerry Lewis style 8-hour Internet Telethon ("From the Frontlines") will take place. This cutting edge production “From The Frontlines” will be broadcast live online by UStream.tv and hosted by Melanie Morgan & Michelle Malkin. Live and taped reports will be broadcast from our troops serving in Iraq & Afghanistan during the historic 8-hour event.

Americans can sponsor the care packages from Move America Forward’s by ordering via this link from MAF’s online webstore partner: TheCampaignStore.com

For more details, go here!

THE SOLUTION TO THE "DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT" PROBLEM OF JUSTICE KENNEDY

BY WAY OF LINKING TO MICHELLE, GLENN ASKS IF DEATH IS REALLY DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT BASED ON WHAT THE CONVICT IN THE ACTUAL CASE ACTUALLY DID TO HIS STEP-DAUGHTER.

I SAY:

• LET THE STATES SENTENCE THE CONVICTED RAPIST TO A LIFETIME OF DAILY RAPES IN PRISON.
• AFTER ALL, RAPING A CHILD PROBABLY RUINS THEIR WHOLE LIFE.
• SO, ER UM... IT'S A PROPORTIONAL PUNISHMENT - USING KENNEDY'S "LOGIC".
  

BOTTOM-LINE: KENNEDY AND THE OTHER 4 LIBS ON THE COURT HAVE MORE SYMPATHY FOR THE RAPIST THAN THE VICTIM.

THEY ARE JUST LIKE THIS LIB DEM CREEP WHO SERVES IN THE MASSACHUSETTS SENATE.

ADDENDUM:

AS LONG AS WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF SICK OLD MEN HAVING SEX WITH PRE-TEEN GIRLS...

THERE'S THIS VIDEO OF AN IMAM ON ARAB TELEVISION EXPLAINING HOW MUHHAMED THE PROHET WAITED UNTIL HIS 6 YEAR OLD WIFE WAS NINE BEFORE CONSUMMATING THE MARRIAGE.

WHAT A GUY!

WARREN BUFFETT DUMPS ON OBAMA'S TAX IDEAS

He's not un-endorsing yet, but he sure does have buyers remorse (video!).

I guess he's a better stock-picker than POTUS picker!

ANOTHER ONE OF BARACK'S SERIAL BETRAYALS: OBAMA GETS SCARLETT FEVER

Barack [middle name redacted] is a serial betrayer.

Now he is tossing Scarlett Johansson under the bus:

The movie star, who campaigns actively for the Illinois senator, recently told the website Politico, "You'd imagine that someone like the senator who is constantly traveling and constantly 'on' - how can he return these personal emails? But he does, and in his off-time I know he also calls people who have donated the minimum to thank them."

She said Obama had responded to one note about a debate, commenting to her that the questions were "silly."

But speaking to reporters aboard his campaign plane, Obama said the actress doesn't have his personal email address. "She sent one email to Reggie, who forwarded it to me," Obama said, referring to his 26-year-old personal assistant, Reggie Love. "I write saying, 'thank you Scarlett for doing what you do,' and suddenly we have this email relationship"

Mickey Kaus thinks he is just inept:

This seems inexplicably clumsy. Johansson's a supporter who helped make Obama a highly effective video. She probably thought she was helping Obama again when she told the press how impressed she was that he returned her emails. Surely there's a way to get across the point that she's just an occasional emailer without making her look like a fantasist. ...

Maybe he is just afraid that Michelle would be jealous.

But in the context of his previous betrayals of his staff, his maternal grandmother, his spiritual mentors (both Jerry Wright and Mike Pfleger), his Church, his foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, his off-again on-again economic advisor Austen Goolsbee, his Kenyan cousin, his Muslim supporters, this latest betrayal seems to be just the latest example of Obama's usual reaction to difficulty.

Betrayal.

Blame someone else. Nothing is ever his problem or his fault. And there is no problem he thinks can not be solved by running away from it.

Obama may have told Jann Wenner that he doesn't "do cowering," but that's only because he is too busy betraying his friends and running away from trouble to cower!

And this is the character of a would-be President? O tempora! O mores!

But where does this habit of betrayal come from?

I hate to be an armchair psychoanalyst, but do you think he could be re-enacting Barack Hussein Obama Senior's betrayal of his wife and infant son?

You think?

Could an instinct to betray anyone who stands in his way really be a foundation of his character?

Judge for yourself.

And as Reliapundit says, Vote accordingly!