BIBI MIGHT NAME ARAB/KADIMA MK AS AMBASSADOR TO EGYPT

HAARETZ: 'Netanyahu could name Druze MK next ambassador to Egypt'

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may appoint a Druze lawmaker from the rival Kadima Party as Israel's next ambassador to Egypt, according to a report which appeared on Saturday in the Cairo-based newspaper Al-Misriyun.

MK Majali Wahabi, a former deputy foreign minister, is a candidate for the post due to his longstanding relationship with senior members of the Mubarak regime, the newspaper reported.

In addition, Netanyahu is seeking to station a moderate in the Cairo post so as to temper Egyptian apprehensions over Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

• IT WOULD BE A GREAT MOVE, POLITICALLY...

• EGYPT HAS BEEN A VERY GOOD NEIGHBOR OF LATE AND KEEPING THAT RELATIONSHIP ON THE BEST OF TERMS IS IMPORTANT.

[ASIDE: HOW MANY JEWS HAVE BEEN ELECTED TO THE LEGISLATURE'S OF ARAB NATIONS!?!?!

NONE.

WHEN JEWS CAN BE ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE IN ARAB NATIONS, THEN THERE WILL BE PEACE.]

OBAMA AND THE OVERUSE OF THE STRAW MAN FALLACY: THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SCOOPS THE NYTIMES

ME YESTERDAY:

OBAMA IS A ONE TRICK PONY: THE STRAW MAN

THE STRAW MAN:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.^{[1] [2]}

OBAMA USES THIS OLD JEDI MINDTRICK ALL THE TIME. HERE'S YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE - FROM OBAMA'S ARCHIVE SPEECH:

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends.

On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right.

THIS IS TOTAL FU*KING BULLSH*T. NOBODY SAYS "ANYTHING GOES!". CERTAINLY NOT BUSH AND CHENEY! AND THE TORTURE MEMO HAD VOLUMINOUS AND DETAILED LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF WATER-BOARDING!

OBAMA GETS AWAY WITH USING THIS LOGICAL FALLACY BECAUSE HE:

• WRITES WELL;
• IS 1/2 BLACK;
• IS TALL;
• HAS A NICE BARITONE;
• READS A TELEPROMPTER AS WELL AS KATHY LEE GIFFORD,
• AND HAS THE MEDIA IN THE BAG.

THE NYTIMES TODAY: "White House Memo: Some Obama Enemies Are Made Totally of Straw"

. . . To listen to President Obama, a veritable army of naysayers has invaded Washington, urging him to sit on his hands at the White House and do nothing to address any of the economic or national security problems facing the country.

“There are those who say these plans are too ambitious, that we should be trying to do less, not more,” Mr. Obama told a town-hall-style meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif., on March 18. “Well, I say our challenges are too large to ignore.”

Mr. Obama did not specify who, exactly, was saying America should ignore its challenges.

Similarly, the next day in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama took on Wall Street and Washington, two of his favorite straw men. “I know some folks in Washington and on Wall Street are saying we should just focus on their problems,” Mr. Obama said. “It would be nice if I could just pick and choose what problems to face, when to face them. So I could say, well, no, I don’t want to deal with the war in Afghanistan right now; I’d prefer not having to deal with climate change right now. And if you could just hold on, even though you don’t have health care, just please wait, because I’ve got other things to do.”

Mr. Obama continued on the offensive against straw men that day in Los Angeles, pointing out that critics told him not to go on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” on NBC because “I can’t handle that and the economy at the same time.” Then, his audience primed, he delivered his standard kill line: “Listen, here’s what I say. I say our challenges are too big to ignore.”

And who can argue with that? Like most straw men, Mr. Obama’s are not complete fabrications. White House officials correctly pointed out that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, took a crack at Mr. Obama for appearing on the Leno show, saying that his “suggestion is that he come back, since he’s taken full responsibility, and get his people together” to confer on the budget.

But that is still a ways from the tortuous construct which Mr. Obama ended up with, that turned Mr. Kyl’s remark into one that somehow needed the “our challenges are too big to ignore” rebuttal, since it suggests that one of those challenges was apparently appearing on Leno.

“Here’s the trick: Take your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme, and then attack the extremists,” said William Safire, the former presidential speechwriter who writes the “On Language” column for The New York Times Magazine. “That leaves the opponent to sputter defensively, ‘But I never said that.’ ”

The telltale indicators that a straw man trick is on the way are the introductory words “there are those who say” or “some say.”

“In strawmanese, you never specify who ‘those who’ are,” Mr. Safire said. “They are the hollow scarecrows you set up to knock down.”

REGULAR READERS KNOW WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME.

SPREAD THE WORD. BLOGROLL US. BOOKMARK US.

BOTTOM LINE: IF THE NYTIMES IS NOTICING IT - AND COMMENTING ON IT, TOO - THEN IT'S REALLY REALLY BAD!

THE DAWNING OF THE AGE OF LAWLESSNESS: OBAMA WLL APPOINT A JUSTICE WHO WILL IGNORE THE LAW

Should Lady Justice Drop Her Blindfold

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama.com

Obama wants judges to be partial

As Barack Obama sees it, Lady Justice should be peeking out from underneath the blindfold when she makes legal decisions.

Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This represents the traditional American belief that all should be equal before the law. Justice is — or should be — meted out objectively, without bias, favor or fear, regardless of power, weakness or identity.

Barack Obama doesn’t agree justice should be blind. He looks to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court with a judge whom he says has “empathy and understanding.” Other criteria he wants in a jurist is “somebody with a sharp and independent mind “(code for a willingness to buck tradition), “and a record of excellence and integrity.”

In blunt words, he wants an activist judge. The term “judicial activism” first surfaced in a 1947 article written by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. for Fortune magazine. He divided the Supreme Court Justices of his time into three groups based upon their level of activism: the Judicial Activists, the Judicial Self-Restrained, and those falling in the middle.

The Judicial Self Restrained are also called Strict Constructionists and they insist on a close reading of a document, whereas loose constructionists are open to self re-interpretation of terms so as to achieve, as they see it, the purpose of the document.

... During his campaign, Obama directly spoke about activist judges: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

... Liberal, subjective reading of the law allows for the courts to be a captive of public opinion. The genius of America’s founding was the protection of individual rights from the hysteria of the mob.

With President Obama’s appointees being activists on the Supreme Court, there is reason for concern. “Where typically Lady Justice is blind and only takes objective facts into consideration, disregarding the position and the opinions of those committing the crimes, she may now apply the law unequally and selectively,” said writer Thomas Landen. “Our societies subsequently risk losing an important principle of Western law, viz. equality under the law.”

Writer Thomas Sowell contrasts the empathy Obama seeks in his judicial appointees with the “rule of law” which he argues is critical to this country. Sowell argues, “[I]f someone was a member of groups of X, Y, or Z and they were to appear before a judge with empathy for groups A, B, and C, that would go against the idea of the ‘rule of law.’”

WHEN JUDGES DECIDE BASED ON THEIR EMOTIONS - OR CONNECTIONS - AND NOT THE LAW, THEN THERE IS NO LAW.

THERE IS - IN PLACE OF THE RULE OF LAW - THE RULE OF THE RULERS.

OF THE MACHINE: IF YOU ARE CONNECTED TO THE MACHINE THEN YOU WIN.

IF NOT???

YOU'RE FUC*ED.

THIS IS HOW IT WAS IN NAZI GERMANY AND THE USSR.

AND IT'S WHAT OBAMA HAS IN STORE FOR US - IF WE LET HIM.

DISSENT ACCORDINGLY.

MUSLIM RIOTS IN GREECE

Greece has just endured a Muslim riot of its own, over the alleged defacing of a Koran (via Jihad Watch):

Dozens of cars have been smashed, 14 people injured and 46 arrested in riots by Muslim migrants over the alleged defacing of a Koran by a policeman.

Police fired tear gas and stun grenades at hundreds of protesters outside Parliament in the city centre.

Police said they would investigate the allegation that an officer tore up an Iraqi migrant's Koran while checking his identity papers in Athens last week. "But this isolated incident cannot justify these acts of violence," said Interior Minister Christos Markoyiannakis.

It won't be an isolated incident much longer if they continue to allow these "migrants" to enter their country.

DER SPIEGEL: HIZBALLAH ASSASSINATED HARIRI - and what that might portend for Nasrallah...

HAARETZ:

German weekly Der Spiegel reported on Saturday that the United Nations tribunal established to investigate his murder has found evidence suggesting that the Lebanese militia Hezbollah was behind the assassination.

According to the magazine, which bases the report entirely on unnamed sources, Lebanese detectives monitored the telephone conversations of individuals who were in the vicinity when the former prime minister was assassinated in a Beirut bombing in 2005.

The magazine suggests that the detectives monitored the mobile phone signals of these people and followed them to the Hezbollah's "special forces" unit.

NASRALLAH OUGHT TO BE ASSASSINATED IN RETRIBUTION.

AND HE MIGHT BE - BUT NOT BY THE LEBANESE... BUT BY AGENTS OF THE ISRAELIS.

(MORE HERE.)

Hariri wAs the duly elected leader o Lebanon at the time he was murdered.

Nasrallah is a thug who leads Hizballah - as jihadist party which undermines democracy in Lebanon and peace in the region - and he also routinely threatens genocide.

THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE IF HE IS ASSASSINATED.

THE "FEELGOOD" DDT BAN: THE GREENS ARE NEARLY AS GENOCIDAL AS THE REDS

They're not as genocidal as socialists but did you know that greens/ecologists are responsible for 50 million preventable deaths?

YUP: THEY'RE "FEELGOOD" POLICY BANNING DDT HAS NO BENEFICIAL EFFECT EXCEPT TO MAKE THEM FEELGOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES FOR THE MISTAKEN BELIEF/DELUSION THAT THEY'RE DOING GOOD WHEN THEY REALLY AIN'T AT ALL.

• THIS IS A VERY VERY BASIC COMPONENT OF LEFTIST PSYCHOLOGY:

• WHETHER IT'S "PEACE MARCHES" OR KYOTO OR CARBON TRADING OR DRIVING A PRIUS - OR THE NEW PROPOSED CAFE STANDARDS:

• THEY FAVOR POLICIES AND DO THINGS WHICH HAVE NO POSITIVE EFFECT IN THE REAL WORLD EXCEPT TO MAKE THEM FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES.

CASE IN POINT:

(BTW: NIC KRISTOF AGREES WITH THIS) WSJ EDITORIAL:

In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria.

So much for that.

Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease.

The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world's poor will suffer as a result.

... Most malarial deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where chloroquine once worked but started failing in the 1970s as the parasite developed resistance. Even if the drugs were still effective in Africa, they're expensive and thus impractical for one of the world's poorest regions. That's not an argument against chloroquine, bed nets or other interventions. But it is an argument for continuing to make DDT spraying a key part of any effort to eradicate malaria, which kills about a million people -- mainly children -- every year. Nearly all of this spraying is done indoors, by the way, to block mosquito nesting at night. It is not sprayed willy-nilly in jungle habitat.

It's no coincidence that WHO officials were joined by the head of the U.N. Environment Program to announce the new policy. There's no evidence that spraying DDT in the amounts necessary to kill dangerous mosquitoes imperils crops, animals or human health. But that didn't stop green groups like the Pesticide Action Network from urging the public to celebrate World Malaria Day last month by telling "the U.S. to protect children and families from malaria without spraying pesticides like DDT inside people's homes."

"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said WHO's malaria chief, Arata Kochi, in 2006. "One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT." Mr. Kochi was right then, even if other WHO officials are now bowing to pressure to pretend otherwise.

FACT: THE LEFT - BOTH GREENS AND REDS - HAVE KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN ANYTHING IN HUMAN HISTORY - EXCEPT ISLAM.

UPDATE: FOR THE LAZY - WHO HAVE NEVER READ KRISTOF ON DDT AND WON'T GOOGLE IT UP THEMSELVES:

January 8, 2005

OP-ED COLUMNIST

It's Time to Spray DDT

If the U.S. wants to help people in tsunami-hit countries like Sri Lanka and Indonesia - not to mention other poor countries in Africa - there's one step that would cost us nothing and would save hundreds of thousands of lives.

It would be to allow DDT in malaria-ravaged countries.

I'm thrilled that we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the relief effort, but the tsunami was only a blip in third-world mortality. Mosquitoes kill 20 times more people each year than the tsunami did, and in the long war between humans and mosquitoes it looks as if mosquitoes are winning.

One reason is that the U.S. and other rich countries are siding with the mosquitoes against the world's poor - by opposing the use of DDT.

"It's a colossal tragedy," says Donald Roberts, a professor of tropical public health at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. "And it's embroiled in environmental politics and incompetent bureaucracies."

In the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, DDT was used to reduce malaria around the world, even eliminating it in places like Taiwan. But then the growing recognition of the harm DDT can cause in the environment - threatening the extinction of the bald eagle, for example - led DDT to be banned in the West and stigmatized worldwide. Ever since, malaria has been on the rise.

The poor countries that were able to keep malaria in check tend to be the same few that continued to use DDT, like Ecuador.

Similarly, in Mexico, malaria rose and fell with the use of DDT.

South Africa brought back DDT in 2000, after a switch to other pesticides had led to a surge in malaria, and now the disease is under control again. The evidence is overwhelming: DDT saves lives.

But most Western aid agencies will not pay for anti-malarial programs that use DDT, and that pretty much ensures that DDT won't be used. Instead, the U.N. and Western donors encourage use of insecticide-treated bed nets and medicine to cure malaria.

Bed nets and medicines are critical tools in fighting malaria, but they're not enough.

The existing anti-malaria strategy is an underfinanced failure, with malaria probably killing 2 million or 3 million people each year.

DDT doesn't work everywhere. It wasn't nearly as effective in West African savannah as it was in southern Africa, and it's hard to apply in remote villages. And some countries, like Vietnam, have managed to curb malaria without DDT.

But overall, one of the best ways to protect people is to spray the inside of a hut, about once a year, with DDT. This uses tiny amounts of DDT - 450,000 people can be protected with the same amount that was applied in the 1960's to a single 1,000-acre American cotton farm.

Is it safe? DDT was sprayed in America in the 1950's as children played in the spray, and up to 80,000 tons a year were sprayed on American crops. There is some research suggesting that it could lead to premature births, but humans are far better off exposed to DDT than exposed to malaria.

I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight. But Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he could accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs.

"South Africa was right to use DDT," he said. "If the alternatives to DDT aren't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives."

At Greenpeace, Rick Hind noted reasons to be wary of DDT, but added: "If there's nothing else and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody's dogmatic about it."

So why do the U.N. and donor agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, generally avoid financing DDT programs?

The main obstacle seems to be bureaucratic caution and inertia. President Bush should cut through that and lead an effort to fight malaria using all necessary tools - including DDT.

One of my most exhilarating moments with my children came when we were backpacking together and spotted a bald eagle. It was a tragedy that we nearly allowed DDT to wipe out such magnificent birds, and we should continue to ban DDT in the U.S.

But it's also tragic that our squeamishness about DDT is killing more people in poor countries, year in and year out, than even a once-in-a-century tsunami.

Malaria kills more people in Africa than aids, but aids gets the $.

Why!?

Because of politicS. The media is leftists and homophilic.

And using DDT doesn't make them feel good.

The best way to save the most lives from ALL HARM is to eradicate leftism - green, red - all of it.

JACOB WEISBERG: GETTING TO KNOW OBAMA

Jacob Weisberg is the editor in chief of the Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. He recently published this essay in Newsweek. Excerpt:

...[In his books, BHO] is a persuasive and appealing character—so much so that he left little demand for alternative explanations. As time goes by, though, Obama's Obama feels less satisfying....

[...]

He's ruthless. In a recent interview with the Times, Obama described his economic policy as "ruthless pragmatism." Interesting choice of modifier. Obama has a healthy disdain for the overrated virtue of political loyalty. But around nominations, his lack of loyalty was slightly chilling to witness. If you're useful (Hillary Clinton), you can hang around with him. If you start to look like a liability (Tom Daschle), enjoy your time with the wolves. Before the inauguration, Christopher Hitchens described Obama as feline in his demeanor. The president is catlike also in his lack of evident affection for the people who serve him. His cracks at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner about Hillary being an envious loser, Larry Summers's problem with women and training his new dog not to pee on Tim Geithner skirted cruelty. Even Obama's jokes about himself were telling: they were all about how great everyone thinks he is.

Weisberg doesn't use the word "narcissist," but clearly he is decribing BHO as one.

Weisberg also mentions the specter of Jimmy Carter:

Can any one person simultaneously manage so many issues in a hands-on way? Our last presidential micromanager, Jimmy Carter, did not have a pleasant time in Washington.

Read Weisberg's entire essay and readers' comments HERE.

Less than a year ago, Weisberg wrote this:

Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.

Is Weisberg having second thoughts as to the kind of President America election on November 4, 2008 -- now that BHO has been in the Oval Office for more than 100 days?

GEITHNER'S WALLET REVEALS HIS AGENDA: CREDIT CARDS; FOREIGN CURRENCY; AND NO DOLLARS

REUTERS:

Geithner, testifying to a congressional panel on Thursday about efforts to tackle the financial crisis, was shown a $50 billion bank note from Zimbabwe that has nearly no value due to hyperinflation in that African country.

Representative John Culberson asked Geithner if he had ever seen such a bill himself, prompting the Treasury secretary to reach into his pocket and produce a Zimbabwean note.

"I often have some foreign currency in my wallet," Geithner told Reuters during a break. "Want to see?"

Many of the slots in the thin, weathered leather wallet were empty. There were three cards with Visa and MasterCard logos -- all inserted upside down so the issuers could not be seen -- and a yellowed identification card of some sort.

From inside, Geithner pulled a small pile of receipts and papers, including a New York City transit card, pointing out there were some euros tucked in there too.

Anything else? Not a single U.S. dollar was in sight.

GEITHNER IS A JOKE.

Obama really is a fascist

MORE HERE.

AND HERE, TOO.

THE LEFT: STILL A BUNCH OF IGNORANT SLUTS

One consistent thing I've noticed over the last decade I have been firmoy on the Right is that people on the Right regularly read the Left-wing MSM - like the NYTIMES and the Beeb and the Huffpo and Daily Kos, but that Lefties NEVER DO.

The Left hates Fox - but never watches it.
The Left HATES talkradio - but never listens to it.
The Left won't read the WSJ or or LUCIANNE or POWERLINE or GATEWAY, and so on.

The Left is like the juror who only listens to one side of the case and yet think he can come up with the right verdict.

It can't happen; they can't determine the correct verdict, except by luck.

This is why they're dupes.

To get un-duped all they have to do is EVERYDAY read NRO and/or the WSJ and/or GATEWAY. And listen to Rush or Levin. And watch Hannity.

Not to the EXCLUSION of their left-wing crap, just in addition to it.

It would open their eyes. And allow them to see the light.

OBAMA IS A ONE TRICK PONY: THE STRAW MAN

THE STRAW MAN:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.^[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.^{[1] [2]}

OBAMA USES THIS OLD JEDI MINDTRICK ALL THE TIME. HERE'S YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE - FROM OBAMA'S ARCHIVE SPEECH:

We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends.

On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: “anything goes.” Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.

Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right.

THIS IS TOTAL FU*KING BULLSH*T. NOBODY SAYS "ANYTHING GOES!". CERTAINLY NOT BUSH AND CHENEY! AND THE TORTURE MEMO HAD VOLUMINOUS AND DETAILED LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF WATER-BOARDING!

OBAMA GETS AWAY WITH USING THIS LOGICAL FALLACY BECAUSE HE:

• WRITES WELL;
• IS 1/2 BLACK;
• IS TALL;
• HAS A NICE BARITONE;
• READS A TELEPROMPTER AS WELL AS KATHY LEE GIFFORD,
• AND HAS THE MEDIA IN THE BAG.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A DUPE!

ON THE MERITS, HIS HYPOCRITICAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS SUCK AND HE'S MAKING US LESS SAFE.

THE UNBRIDLED SOCIALISM OF OBAMA

He's taken over the auto industry.

And a lot of the banking/financial industry.

And he has his eyes on the healthcare industry.

Together, they make up a BIG chunk of the economy. What... maybe 30%? Plus the federal government already is a huge part of the economy.

This esplosive growth of the government is an un-American intrusion into pour businesses and is FUNDAMENTALLY anti-freemarket.

There's been nothing like it since Attlee took over from Churchill after WW2 - and nationalized about 60% of the British economy. RUINING IT FOR THREE DECADES!



It's costing us a fortune already - what Obama has given Detroit $50 Billion so far, maybe more, and their STILL going bankrupt!
]"CLEMENT ATTLEE OBAMA".

All Obama's policies will do is make the goods and services these industries offer WORSE.

It's the sovietization of America. He's trying to Chavezify us.

We mustn't let him.

DISSENT ACCORDINGLY.

MIGHT RUSSIA REALLY STILL BE THE HUB OF THE AXIS OF EVIL?

Maybe. Maybe it never really stopped being the focus of evil in the modern world, the empire of evil.

Russia backed the Norks. And backs Iran - by building its nuclear reactors and selling it missiles. Ditto Syria. And via Iran and Syria - Hamas and Hizballah.

They have a lot in common: Jihadists and Baathists are statists, socialists - Iran is socialist, like Russia and Syria and North Korea.

And they have a common foe: the USA and the West.

Russia is really never very helpful to the West - not ANYWHERE: they didn't help us in Afghanistan or in Iraq or in the Middle East, or with the Norks. They havfe never EVER really helped us.

I think that if we could bring Russia to it's knees again... that we could severely weaken the Norks, Iran and Syria and Hamas and Hizballah.

Which is why we should aggressively exploit ALL known reserves of oil and gas (to reduce Europe's dependency on Russia and drive the price down - and on this front, Saudi Arabia could help a lot by turning the spigots WAY WAY UP!).

And we should deploy NMD in Europe, and get much more assertive in Georgia and the Ukraine.

Now is not the time to apologize, appease and retreat - as Obama is doing. This helps Russia and Russia's axis.

We should be turning the heat up on Russia, not down.

OBAMACARE VIDEO: exposing the lie that the goal of Obamacare is to keep the private sector honest, by providing additional choice & competition

MUST SEE TV.

OBAMA, CHRYSLER, THE UNIONS - AND CRONY CAPITALISM

UNBEFREAKINLIEVABLE:

IF YOU DONATE TO THE GOP,
THEN THE FOLKS WHO NOW OWN AND RUN CHRYSLER -
THE CHICAGO MACHINE, THE UAW AND THE DEMS -
SHUT YOUR ASS DOWN.

VIA SONDRAK.

OBAMA'S KUMBAYA SPEECH AT ANNAPOLIS

Upholding values will shield US from terror: Obama

President Barack Obama Friday warned America risked its security when it compromised its values, seeking support for his bid to sketch a new legal framework for anti-terror policies.

Obama used the backdrop of the US Naval Academy graduation ceremony to argue that founding US ideals must guide the future battle against terrorism, a day after trying to quell raging debate over Guantanamo Bay in a major speech.

"We uphold our fundamental principles and values not just because we choose to, but because we swear to -- not because they feel good, but because they help keep us safe," Obama told 30,000 graduating navy cadets and family members.

WHAT PLATITUDINOUS CRAP!

BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS KEEP US SAFE, "NOT UPHOLDING VALUES"; CHURCHILL (UPON ACCEPTING THE POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER):

I say to the House as I said to ministers who have joined this government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat.

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind.

We have before us many, many months of struggle and suffering.

You ask, what is our policy?

I say it is to wage war by land, sea, and air.

War with all our might and with all the strength God has given us, and to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.

You ask, what is our aim?

I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terrors - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival.

Let that be realized. No survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge, the impulse of the ages, that mankind shall move forward toward his goal.

I take up my task in buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. I feel entitled at this juncture, at this time, to claim the aid of all and to say, "Come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

CHURCHILL DIDN'T UTTER THE WORD "VALUE" ONCE; HE IS EXPLICITLY ANNOUNCING THAT BRITAIN WOULD DO EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING TO WIN.

SADLY - FOR OUR SAFETY AND THE SAFETY OF THE FREE WORLD - OBAMA WON'T DO THE SAME.

ANOTHER OBAMA SHAM: "Obama’s Euro Dream Cars "

PLANET GORE:

Obama’s Euro Dream Cars [Henry Payne]

Explicit in the Obama administration’s new mpg edict is Euro-envy (a sentiment that informs much of this president’s economics). If the Europeans can drive 39 mpg cars, why can’t we?

Yes, European cars average 39 mpg. That’s under the duress of $7-a-gallon petrol. And on a smaller continent with less space and narrower roads. And — as my Michigan colleagues Steve Siler and Mike Duchane of Car & Driver point out — in vehicles less capable and considerably more expensive than ours.

“Car for car,” they write, “European vehicles aren’t meaningfully more efficient. Take the Ford Focus sedan, a car that’s comparably sized here and in Europe. In the U.S., the base Focus sedan costs $15,000, has 140 hp, and is rated at 28 mpg combined by the EPA. The base Focus sedan available in Germany costs $20,000 (plus a 19-percent tax), has only 79 hp, and would be rated by the EPA at approximately 30 mpg combined if they were to test it. Paying an extra $5000, Europeans sacrifice 44 percent of their horsepower and gain less than 10 percent in fuel economy.

“So why is Europe's fleet so much more efficient overall? The cars people buy there are much smaller. The Focus is one of the tinier mass-market cars sold in the U.S. today, but . . . the average European consumer buys a car a few sizes smaller than a Focus. And about half of Europeans buy diesels, which consume around 30 percent less fuel.”

Obama mouthpieces like Michigan governor Granholm insist that we can have it all: Greener cars with the same capabilities. But the Euro experience proves there is no such thing as a free lunch.

05/21 07:15 PM

REPEAT: Europeans sacrifice 44 percent of their horsepower and gain less than 10 percent in fuel economy.

• CENTRAL PLANNING HAS NEVER WORKED.
• CAFE AND CAP & TRADE AND OBAMACARE WILL DESTROY THE US ECONOMY.

DISSENT ACCORDINGLY.

The return of the French weasels: FRANCE TELLS ISRAEL TO GIVE HALF OF JERUSALEM TO THE ARABS

FRENCH WEASELS STRIKE AGAIN:

I SAY: IF ISRAEL MUST JERUSALEM TOI THE ARABS THEN WHY DOESN'T FRANCE GIVE THE 20TH ARRONDISEMENT AND THE BANLIEUES TO THE ARABS. AND THE SOUTH OF FRANCE.

HERE'S THE TRUTH FOLKS:

France accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday of prejudicing the outcome of the Middle East peace process by declaring that Jerusalem would forever be Israel's undivided capital.

"Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people, a city reunified so as never again to be divided," Netanyahu said on Thursday at a ceremony to mark Jerusalem Day in the city's Mercaz Harav yeshiva.

"Our people's unparalleled affinity to Jerusalem has spanned thousands of years, and is at the basis of our national renaissance. It has united our people, secular and religious people alike."

Foreign Ministry spokesman Frederic Desagneaux said Friday, "The declaration made by the Israeli prime minister yesterday in Jerusalem prejudices the final status agreement," according to AFP.

Desagneaux also said the "Middle East road map" to peace calls on both parties to negotiate an agreement on Jerusalem.

"In France's eyes, Jerusalem should, within the framework of a negotiated peace deal, become the capital of two states," he said, adding that French President Nicolas Sarkozy had told Israeli lawmakers this in a speech last year.

The ONLY reason the Arabs want Jerusalem and Hamas and Hizaballah want THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL is because they want to treat Jews and Christians as second class citizens, DHIMMIS.

After all, Arabs in Israel enjoy ALL THE RIGHT JEWS DO: they get healthcare, schools, mosques to pray in - and democracy: they have Arab members of the Knesset and a judge on the Supreme Court. In fact, Arabs in Israel have more rights and freedoms than Arabs ANYWHERE else.

So they can't want Jerusalem - or any other part of Israel - because they want GREATER freedom and rights; they only want CONTROL so they can treat Christians and Jews as DHIMMIS.

France and the EU and the UN are helping them DHIMMIFY the Middle East. They are helping the Arabs de-Westify it and re-orientalize it.

France and the UN and the EU are traitors to Western Civilization.

MARK STEYN - VERBATIM: What's So Wrong with Obama Motors?

What's So Wrong with Obama Motors? [Mark Steyn]

Re my post below, a reader writes:

I accept the proposition that some car dealers are seeing their investments ruined, though I don’t know the details.

But it’s entirely unclear to me how the Obama administration is doing wrong in this. These car companies are failing. Without government support, they will collapse...

With government support, some dealerships will survive. That’s the best anyone can hope for. And the fact that the government demands an ownership stake for its many billions of dollars in capital is – as best as I can tell – simple, straightforward economic fairness to the government and the taxpayers...

How again is Obama the villain in this piece – unless you insist that Obama magically transform the auto industry and save every job, every dealership, etc.?

Obama is the "villain" because he prevented the legal bankruptcy procedures in order to create (to the severe detriment of the company's bond and stock holders) two union/government-owned automakers.

Under traditional bankruptcy restructuring, the various GM/Chrysler brands — Chevy, Dodge, etc — would have wound up in the hands of new owners, domestic and foreign, willing to make a go of them.

Instead, Obama and his car czars have delivered these marques into the formal control of the unions (the ones who got the companies into this mess) and of the government — which cannot run a car company.

Why? Because it will make decisions for political rather than business reasons.

And unions will make decisions for the "workforce" rather than the market.

At the moment the GM/Chrysler unions cannot make a car at a price anyone is willing to pay for it. Why give them the companies?

Those of us who've lived with government car companies know how this story ends: see Iain Murray's column today — and, for a precis of life under a union/government alliance, ask Iain to explain the British expression "Beer and sandwiches at Number Ten."

I love American cars. I have a Chevy truck, Chevy SUV, the whole Steyn fleet. But I will never buy another Chevy until it is restored to private ownership. When GM sneezes, America catches a cold. When GM is put on government life-support, it's America — and the American idea — that's dying.

05/22 03:22 PM

You Can't Get out of Dodge, but Dodge Can Get out of You [Mark Steyn]

The great thing about the whole Obama hopeychangey vibe is that once again America is beloved around the planet. Well, unless you're a Canadian car dealer:

A car dealer in Outlook is wondering what to do after being told by General Motors they were terminating his franchise. GM is chopping 40 percent of its dealerships in Canada...

Actually, 42 percent. But don't worry, Americans are getting a piece of the inaction, too:

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them...

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?
THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY...

Get real, man. If you're a Yemeni jihadist whose lawyer is now Assistant Deputy Associate Deputy Assistant Attorney-General, you're entitled to the full protection of the U.S. Constitution. The rest of us have to take our chances. Be thankful your refurbished showroom isn't being confiscated to re-house Gitmo detainees*.
The Dodge dealer may be a "private business" but Chrysler isn't.

Good luck pleading your case to an entity that's 55 percent union-owned, eight percent U.S.-government owned, two percent Canadian/Ontario-government owned, with a 20 percent stake held by an Italian manufacturer that brings no serious cash or knowhow to to the table but will supposedly rescue Chrysler by inflicting on the U.S. multiple small-car models that even non-Italian Europeans won't buy.

Meanwhile, the new GM is 89 percent government/union-owned.

Nothing good will come of either of these legally dubious enforced "restructurings."

In 15 years, if any of the once glorious marques survive, they won't be owned by these entities, or manufactured by them. My advice to the Dodge guy is to convert his showroom into an ACORN dealership.

(*Although, come to think of it, that makes as much sense as anything else.)

05/22 01:57 PMShare

U.S. Jobless Rate May Soon Top Europe's

Thank you, Mr. President.

From the New York Times:

Off the Charts

That is no longer the case. Unemployment in the United States has risen to European averages, and seems likely to pass them when international data for April is calculated. ...

For many years, unemployment in the United States was lower than in Western Europe, a fact often cited by people who argued that the flexibility inherent in the American system — it is easier to both hire and fire workers than in many European countries — produced more jobs.

In March, the American unemployment rate stood at 8.5 percent, the same as the average rate for the first 15 members of the European Union — the countries that were part of the group before it began to expand into Eastern Europe.

RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: YES, OBAMA IS SUCCEEDING IN MAKING ONE OF THE LEFT'S DREAMS COME TRUE: MAKING THE USA MORE LIKE EUROPE: OUR UNEMPLOYMENT IS NOW AS HIGH AS THEIRS!

From Gateway Pundit:

Economy Continues To Crumble - America May Lose It's AAA-Rating

Here are today's Drudge headlines...
California Cities Irked by Borrowing Plan...
Florida's BANKUNITED; Year's Biggest Bust...
Recession Turns Malls Into Ghost Towns...
Dollar Falls...
Fed President Says Inflation to Increase...
GM Bankruptcy: As Early As Next Week...

And, there's more...

The US is about to lose its AAA credit rating thanks to Barack Obama and the tax and spend democrats.
Bloomberg reported:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner committed to cutting the budget deficit as concern about deteriorating U.S. creditworthiness deepened, and ascribed a sell-off in Treasuries to prospects for an economic recovery.

“It’s very important that this Congress and this president put in place policies that will bring those deficits down to a sustainable level over the medium term,” Geithner said in an interview with Bloomberg Television yesterday. He added that the target is reducing the gap to about 3 percent of gross domestic product, from a projected 12.9 percent this year.

The dollar extended declines today after Treasuries and American stocks slumped on concern the U.S. government’s debt rating may at some point be lowered. Bill Gross, the co-chief investment officer of Pacific Investment Management Co., said the U.S. “eventually” will lose its AAA grade.

So now Geithner says he wants to reduce the deficit?
It's about time:

Team Obama will quadruple the national deficit this year.

But, you can't trust tax cheat Geithner on this either...
Because as Geithner promises to cut the national deficit democrats across town are currently working on a costly and massive new cap and trade tax that will destroy industry and likely cost $700 to $1,400 dollars per family per year. And, the costly nationalized healthcare plan is coming down the pike.

No wonder Brazil and China are trying to flee from the US dollar.

More... Allahpundit adds:

"We’re facing the following choice eventually: Either increase the monetary supply to meet our obligations and risk massive inflation, or refuse to meet our obligations and suffer a lower debt rating, thereby triggering even more massive deficits. What am I missing here?"

Somehow, in the stillness of the American heart, there is still room for Hopey-Change:

Attack of the Hopey-Changers

Chevron Battling $27 Billion Lawsuit in Ecuador

If you’re like most Americans, you’ve probably heard little about an environmental lawsuit that has potential to produce the largest settlement in the history of the world. In the space below, I offer for free information that might best be described as “The Definitive Guide to the Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as “The Guide“).”

Before I introduce the contents of The Guide, however, let me offer a brief overview of the lawsuit:

The case pits the Amazon Defense Coalition, led by a Philadelphia-based lawyer, who claims to represent tens of thousands of indigenous people damaged by the reckless actions of Texaco Oil Company as it operated in a partnership with state-owned PetroEcuador from 1964 to 1990. Because Chevron Corporation purchased Texaco in 2001, the United States’ third-largest company became the target of — or defendant in — the class-action lawsuit that’s now in its 16th year and is expected to be decided upon in an Ecuadoran court within months.

To find all of the details and The Guide to the case, click here.

Russian threatens the EU, and its neighbors

BBC:

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned the European Union not to turn a proposed partnership with former Soviet countries against Moscow.

Mr Medvedev was speaking at the end of a Russia-EU summit held against a background of deep divisions over security, trade and energy supplies.

He also signalled a new gas crisis may lie ahead, suggesting Ukraine lacks the money to pay for gas Russia provides.

A row over prices severely affected supplies to Europe in January.

The BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says divisions between Russia and the European Union seem to be growing ever wider, and this latest summit, held in the far east of Russia, made that abundantly clear, with little sign of progress on any significant topic.

'Anti-Russian bent'

"We would not want the Eastern Partnership to turn into partnership against Russia. There are various examples," Mr Mevedev told a news conference at the end of the summit.

"I would simply not want this partnership to consolidate certain individual states, which are of an anti-Russian bent, with other European states," he said.

Moscow has accused the 27-member bloc of creating new dividing lines in Europe by offering closer ties to six former Soviet republics.

THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS VERBAL THREAT.

THE THREAT ALONE PROVES THE RUSSIAN REGIME IS NO FRIEND OF DEMOCRACY - OR ITS NEIGHBOURS INDEPENDENCE.

AND THAT ON THE WORLD STAGE, RUSSIA IS CURRENTLY A FORCE FOR EVIL.

RUSSIA SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.

COMPLETE VIDEO OF CHENEY INDICTING OBAMA AND THE DOVES AT AEI

OBAMA VERSUS CHENEY: NOT DUELING SPEECHES, BUT OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE TRIAL OF THE MILLENNIUM

OBAMA'S SPEECH WAS LIKE A PARTISAN ATTACK, IF NOT A PROSECUTOR'S OPENING ARGUMENT.

AND - CONSIDERING HOW MANY ON THE LEFT THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TRIALS AGAINST BUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTON, IT MAY VERY WELL TURN OUT TO BE AN OPENING ARGUMENT, TOO!

UPDATE: THERE'S A DEFINITE LEGAL DEFENSE ASPECT TO THIS ARGUMENT:

• ACCORDING TO HIS DAUGHTER, CHENEY STARTED TO SPEAK OUT ON THE MATTER BECAUSE OBAMA THREATENED TO PROSECUTE HIM.

EXCERPTS FROM CHENEY'S DEFENSE:

9/11 made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat: what the Congress called an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States. From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place.

We could count on almost universal support back then, because everyone understood the environment we were in. We'd just been hit by a foreign enemy, leaving 3,000 Americans dead, more than we lost at Pearl Harbor. In Manhattan, we were staring at 16 acres of ashes. The Pentagon took a direct hit. And the Capitol or the White House were spared only by the Americans on Flight 93, who died bravely and defiantly.

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and it was our job to stop it. We didn't know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad.

... To make certain our nation never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with a far greater homeland security to make the United States a tougher target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries and committed to using every asset to take down their networks.

We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to the enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction and might transfer such weapons to the terrorists.

We did all of these things and, with bipartisan support, put all of these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations: the takedown of the A.Q. Khan network and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program.

It required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and at every turn the people of our military carried the heaviest burden.

Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of his time on the defensive, and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

...So we're left to draw one of two conclusions, and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event, coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort.

... Our successors in office have their own views on these matters. By presidential decision last month, we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. This is held up as a bold exercise in open government, honoring the public's right to know. We're informed, as well, that there was much agonizing over this decision.

Yet somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. The released memos were carefully redacted to leave out references to what our government learned through the methods in question.

Other memos, laying out specific terrorist plots that were averted, apparently were not even considered for release.

For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called truth commission. Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense and political opponents as criminals.

Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called truth commission. Some are even demanding that those who recommended and approved the interrogations be prosecuted, in effect treating political disagreements as a punishable offense and political opponents as criminals.

It's hard to imagine a worse precedent filled with more possibilities for trouble and abuse than to have an incoming administration criminalize the policy decisions of its predecessor.

Apart from doing a serious injustice to intelligence operators and lawyers who deserve far better for their devoted service, the danger here is a loss of focus on national security and what it requires.

I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at the interrogations is utterly misplaced, and staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people.

... At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Those personnel were carefully chosen from within the CIA and were especially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law.

Torture was never permitted. And the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, with our statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values.

... Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all- important purpose: We sought _ and we, in fact, obtained _ specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogation. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the president is on the path of sensible compromise.

But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half-exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States; you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.

Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned or one lead that goes unpursued can bring on catastrophe, it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people hang in the balance.

I THINK CHENEY STARTS OFF LIKE A DEFENSE LAWYER - DEFENDING HIMSELF AGAINST THE PROSECUTORIAL OBAMA.

THEN, CHENEY'S SPEECH ACTUALLY BECOMES AN INCREDIBLY DAMNING INDICTMENT OF OBAMA. (AND THE NYTIMES!)

AND IN THIS CASE I WILL VOTE FOR OBAMA: HE'S GUILTY OF LYING AND MAKING OUR NATION - AND THE WEST - MORE VULNERABLE.

CONGRESSIONAL DEMAGOGUES GET THEIR WISH: AIG CHAIRMAN QUITS

BBC: Insurer AIG says its chief executive, Edward Liddy, plans to step down after eight months in the job.

Mr Liddy was appointed after AIG's near collapse and government bail-out in September, and his time in the job was expected to be temporary.

His tenure at AIG was not easy. Bonuses paid to AIG executives caused widespread controversy.

Mr Liddy, who was being paid a $1 annual salary, will leave the company when a replacement is found.

"Much work remains to be done at AIG, but much has already been accomplished," Mr Liddy said.

... The insurer has been heavily criticised for paying $165m in bonuses after taking government money, although many top executives have agreed to return the payments.

[A DEAL WHICH HER GOVT KNEW ABOUT IN ADVANCE AND APPROVED. AND: THE DEAL PRE-DATED LIDDY'S ENTRY TO AIG!!!]

The US government has committed $180bn to AIG, in return for an 80% stake.

Stephen Bollenbach, AIG's lead director, said that Mr Liddy had led AIG "effectively and courageously", and without compensation.

"Ed Liddy answered the call of his country and the needs of AIG without reservation amid one of the darkest periods of the current financial crisis," Mr Bollenbach said.

• THE WHOLE BROUHAHA OVER THE BONUSES WAS NOTHING MORE THAN CONGRESSIONAL PROPAGANDA, AND MISDIRECTION PLOY TO GET THE HEAT OFF OF THEM.

• IT WAS DISGUSTING.

• AND AIG IS LOSING A GOOD MAN AS A RESULT.

• A MAN WHO KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING - UNLIKE THE SCUM IN DC.

ETHIOPIAN ZIONISTS PRAY AT MOUNT HERZL IN JERUSALEM

Ethiopian Israeli dignitaries pray before a memorial ceremony at Mount Herzl cemetery in Jerusalem, Thursday, May 21, 2009. The ceremony honored the four thousand Ethiopians who have died over the past several decades on their journey from Africa to Israel.

WHAT IF DETROIT SPENDS BILLIONS TO BUILD MORE EXPENSIVE SMALLER CARS WITH BETTER FUEL EFFICIENCY AND WHICH EMIT LESS CO2, BUT NOBODY BUYS THEM?

It will be a lot like the Fannie Mae meltdown:

A COLOSSAL WASTE OF MONEY.

HEY FOLKS: Do you run a business? Do you think you know what you're doing? Well... would you like politicans telling you how to run your business!?

It can't work.

It never has.

If it did, we'd all be driving Zaporozhets.

LATEST OBAMA MINDTRICK: Bush anti-terror policies were "neither effective nor sustainable"

JAWA: Trying to Fix What Ain't Broke

President Obama, using his snottiest, most condescending voice said that:

"Decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass," Obama said. "And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people."

Um, Barry, you can't bat any better than 1000, and, much as you loathe the reality, that's exactly what the Bush administration did following 9/11.

BARRY IS LYING. BUT SADLY MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE HIS LIES.

• THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THIS CRAP PROBABLY ALSO BELIEVE IN AGW
• AND THAT GUN CONTROL LOWERS CRIME

• AND THAT THE UN IS EFFECTIVE

• AND THAT BUSH LIED

• AND THAT RENDITION WAS INVENTED BY BUSH AND IS BAD

• AND THAT THE TURKEY WAS PLASTIC

• AND THAT IRAQIS WERE BETTER OFF UNDER SADDAM

• AND THAT TALKING TO IRAN WILL WORK

• AND THAT WATER-BOARDING IS TORTURE EVEN THOUGH ALL U.S. SPECAL FORCES ARE ROUTINELY WATER-BOARDED DURING TRAINING

• AND THAT GORBACHEV WON THE COLD WAR FOR THE WEST DESPITE REAGAN

• AND THAT IN THE MIDDLE EAST ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM

• AND THAT TALKING TO NORTH KOREA WILL WORK

• AND THAT RAISING TAXES IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY

• AND THAT ASKING PEOPLE TO SHOW VALID ID BEFORE VOTING IS BAD FOR THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

• AND THAT WE SPEND TO MUCH ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE PENTAGON

• AND THAT A NATIONAL HEATHCARE SYSTEM WOULD BE RUN BETTER THAN THE IRS AND THE POST OFFICE AND THE DHS AND THE SEC AND FANNIE MAE

• AND THAT WE'RE NOT SOCIALIST ENOUGH

• AND THAT LIBERAL SCOTUS DECISIONS ARE WRITTEN IN STONE, BUT THAT BAD THINGS IN THE CONSITUTION - MANY THE RESULT OF BEING WRITTEN BY WHITE SLAVE-HOLDERS - MEAN IT'S CONVENIENTLY ALSO A "LIVING DOCUMENT"

• AND THAT NMD DOESN'T WORK AND SHOULDN'T BE DEPLOYED ANYWHERE

• AND THAT CLINTION DIDN'T COMMIT PERJURY AND EVEN IF HE DID FELONIES ARE NOT IMPEACHABLE

• AND THAT THE GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO DECIDE HOW MUCH PEOPLE GET PAID

• AND THAT FOR THE FIRST 22 WEEKS A PREGNANT WOMAN IS NOT CARRYING A HUMAN LIFE

• AND THAT CO2 IS TOXIC

• AND THAT WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER - EVEN WHEN WE'RE UNDER ATTACK

• AND THAT TALKRADIO AND FOX ARE UNFAIR AND NEED TO BE CENSORED, OR AT LEAST IGNORED

• AND THAT SHINSEKI WAS FIRED FOR SAYING WE NEEDED 600,000 TROOPS TO WIN IN IRAQ (EVEN THOUGH PETRAEUS AND THE SURGE PROVED WE DIDN'T NEED THAT MANY!)

• AND THAT TEDDY IS NOT A MURDERER WHO GOT AWAY WITH BECAUSE OF HIS CONNECTIONS

• AND THAT THE SURGE DIDN'T WORK

• AND THAT JIMMY CARTER WAS A GOOD PRESIDENT AND IS OUR BEST EX-PRESIDENT

• AND THAT GLOBALIZATION AND FREE TRADE IS BAD FOR PEOPLE

• AND THAT CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE AS DANGEROUS AS JIHADISTS

• AND THAT FANNIE MAE AND THE CRA HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH THE CURRECT CRISIS

• AND THAT EUROPE AND CANADA HAVE A BETTER HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAN OURS

• AND THAT OBAMA WON BECAUSE HE'S "THE ONE", AND NOT BECAUSE HE OUTSPENT MCCAIN 8-1 DURING A RECESSION.

THEY ARE FREAKIN IDIOTS OR DUPES WHO NEED TO BE DEPROGRAMMED.

OBAMA TOUTS "MIDDLE-GROUND", BUT IT'S REALLY JUST LIBTARD HALF-ASSERY

You don't win wars - or reduce casualties - by taking half-measures.

In wartime, "half-measure" is just a polite way to say half-assed.

What's right IS right; what's WRONG is WRONG.

What's half-wrong ain't right.

WHATS HALF-RIGHT AIN'T RIGHT EITHER.

You cannot split the baby.

2 + 2 = 4. NOT THREE AND NOT 5 AND NOT 3.5.

In a war, you do what keep your people safe and your casualties low, NOT what keeps you "sorta safe" and your casualties "sorta low" and keeps your political base happy and your enemies appeased.

Lincoln and Sherman and Grant defeated the South and slavery by GOING ALL OUT. Ditto FDR and Truman in WW2. As Truman said - If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. And THE BUCK STOPS HERE.

THE PROBLEM IS: Obama isn't man enough to do what's right.

Obama is at his core a postmodernist who doesn't believe in AMERICA EXCEPTIONALISM and is therefore basically anti-American and a dove and an appeaser. (FROM THE WHITE HOUSE WEBSITE: OBAMA:

I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

TO OBAMA OUR EXCEPTIONALISM IS A RESULT OF OUR CULTURAL BIAS; IT'S NOT REAL.

You see, postmodernists - being cultural and moral relativists - don't think ANYTHING is really worth all out war.

Lincoln was no moral relativist, and he pursued victory at all costs - even suspending habeus corpus and burning Atlanta to the ground. LINCOLN WAS RIGHT, AND LINCOLN'S CAUSE WAS GOOD AND JUST AND NOBLE AND HE WAS RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER IT TOOK TO WIN.

Obama's rhetoric sounds sweet and smooth - even seems reasonable on the surface to those predisposed to like him - but it's PHONY and HOLLOW and FALSE and can therefore only yield a DISASTROUS policy.



Listen to the BRILLIANT Liz Cheney on this video - skip to 1:30 - that's the money part.

• Mitt agrees.

• Jay is disgusted by Obama's BLATANT partisan attitude.

• Ramesh says succinctly - and cynically:

President Obama and former Vice President Cheney weren't so much a study in contrast today as a portrait of harmony. Both men agree that the Bush administration's anti-terrorist policies were largely correct. Cheney signaled his acceptance of this view by vigorously defending those policies. Obama signaled it by largely adopting those same policies and emitting a fog of words to cover up the fact.

I SAY OBAMA IS DOING WHAT HE CAN TO ASSUAGE HIS LEFTIST BASE AND TO SET UP THE NEED FOR TRUTH COMMISSIONS WHICH WILL BE NOTHING LESS THAN PUTTING THE BUSH PEOPLE ON TRIAL.

AND I BETCHYA THE JOINT CHIEFS AND KEY AGENTS IN THE CIA ARE VERY PISSED OFF AT HIM AND THAT SOME ARE EVEN THREATENING TO QUIT.

I BETCHYA THIS IS TEMPERING HIS ACTIONS. FOR THE TIME BEING...

Complete round up here at Memeorandum.