Saturday Night Live’s Scott Brown sketch

Scott Brown seems to have liked the sketch.  Here is Brown's reaction: 

Brown smiled as he watched it. “Thank goodness I like a good laugh,” he tells National Review Online. “That was pretty funny. I wish I could host SNL some day. I’ve been watching it since I was young. Jon Hamm is great.” But what about Hamm’s Boston accent? “He did a great job,” says Brown. “He doesn’t really sound like me, but it was very funny.” 

I thought it was funny too, but knowing that SNL leans to the left, I have to wonder if they are suggesting that the only reason Brown won was because he is perceived as good looking? This theme is often applied to Palin as well, so is that why the SNL Scott Brown does all that winking (a la Palin)?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: National Review’s The Corner

Junk Science Alert: IPCC based its findings on a student paper and a magazine article

With each passing day, the whole Climate Change hysteria is looking like first class junk science. The UK Telegraph reports today that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) based its claims about disappearing ice on mountaintops on a student paper and a magazine article.

From the UK Telegraph: 

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

You must be joking!  How much money have western nations sunk into the IPCC and all these clowns do is crib anecdotal evidence from magazines and term papers? So, basically if I watch a snowman melt, I can write a paper about it and it too could become irrefutable evidence of Climate Change!  This Climate Change has to be the biggest scam ever.

What is really dangerous about accepting junk science like this is that real science gets the short shift. Witness NASA losing funding for man space exploration and for what? So we can waste billions on this fraud science.

Worse yet, it seems like Climate Change is inserting itself into our institutions. The EPA is on board with regulating carbon dioxide, recently the SEC and the CIA have picked up this junk science. Let us also not forget what Obama had to say about Climate Change at the State of the Union: 

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.  

More like the overwhelming evidence that Climate Change is pure bunk! We all really need to start speaking out against the fraud science of Climate Change before America sinks any more of its borrowed money into it.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The UK Telegraph

Via: The Washington Post

Via: The Wall Street Journal

Via: The Dallas Morning News

Via: Central Intelligence Agency

Via: The New York Times

More Indoctrination: Organizing for America recruits high school students for internships

click for larger image

Pam Geller from Atlas Shrugs has an exclusive up today.  One of her readers sent her a copy of recruiting material given to high schools students from Organizing for America for internships.  Organizing for America is the new name for Obama’s campaign website from 2008 (mybarackobama.com).  The recruiting material’s reading list is pure Alinsky agitation. Here is an example of the reading list:

From Atlas Shrugs:

Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky

The New Organizers, Zack Exley

Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy, Rinku Sen

Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle, Zack Exley, Huffington Post

Dreams of My Father Chicago Chapters, Barack Hussein Obama

The left constantly tells us that there is no plan to indoctrinate our children in leftist ideology. Yet, junk like this is constantly turning up.  Children forced to waste their time learning vapid songs to the empty suit. Wasting an entire day contemplating Obama after his silly speech to kids or learning about inappropriate sexual activity. Now they are actively recruiting high school kids to learn community organizing i.e. agitation.

The think I cannot stand about all of this, is that it robs children from desperately needed classroom time for real learning. Instead of our children using all their classroom time to acquire a strong grasp of the basics, they must waste their time on all this social engineering bullshit.  For black children in failing inner city schools, wasting their classroom time like this, is truly a sin in the eye of God.

If your children are in a public school, demand to see their schoolwork. Know exactly what they are working on daily. Teach them what indoctrination is and teach them to report it and not to go along with it. Apathy and ignorance are the socialists’ best tools and the best way to defeat them is to stay informed.

Click over to Atlas Shrugs to view the full materials.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Atlas Shrugs

Senator Tom Harkin says deal was reached on ObamaCare before Mass. upset

Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) says that an agreement was reached with the House, Senate and the White House on healthcare reform days before the Massachusetts special election. He claims that it was only the CBO that held them up from actually passing that ugly thing.

From The Hill: 

Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.

Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.

[snip]

Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.

Sorry but I ain’t buying this. For an entire year, the Democrats totally ignored voters dissatisfaction with healthcare reform and they pushed it forward. The Democrats ignored the Tea Parties, the town hall meetings even the massive march on Washington. Only when it looked like Martha Coakley was going down in flames, did they pay the least bit of attention.

Here is what I think happened. The week before the Massachusetts special election the House Democrats, who are all up for re-election in November, saw with each passing day that Coakley was headed for defeat.  They simply grew cold feet and decided to think about their re-election chances instead. Now that Scott Brown has won, those feet remain frozen. Any Democrat with a halfway decent chance of winning their seat back is not going to vote for a bill that the bluest of blue states reject.

I think Harkin tells this tale in order to let the left down gently. Otherwise it would be quite apparent that the Democrats chickened out at the last minute. I think all this chatter about still passing the bill has more to do with avoiding backlash from the far left, than with actually moving forward on the bill.

Read, the rest of Harkin’s statement and let me know what you think.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Hill

Rasmussen: Americans not buying what Obama was selling at SOTU

Rasmussen has conducted a poll of how voters reacted to assertions Obama made about the economy and the results are staggering. Most voters simply do not believe the assertions Obama made about the economy by very wide margins.

On tax cuts: 

... just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years. 

On the recession: 

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false. 

On jobs: 

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it's false. 

On the spending freeze: 

Regarding another initiative detailed in the speech on Wednesday night, just nine percent (9%) of voters believe the president’s proposed freeze on discretionary spending will have a big impact on the deficit. 

The numbers get worse why party affiliation is taken into account. On all questions, only Democrats believe what Obama was selling and even then by small margins. The majority of Republicans and Independents simply were not buying any of it. 

The only silver lining for Obama is that Democrats opinion of Obama increased after the State of the Union address. There was no change for Republicans and Independents.

The problem for Obama is that he is using very old Chicago style politics in a very new political era. Many voters on the right and in the middle have become much more active. They are now following political news much more closely than before. Simply trying to spin away bad news will not work anymore. Adding to Obama’s problem is that we are now firmly in the YouTube generation. Anyone with modest editing skills can string together past statements and prove a politicians lies with devastating effect. Remember the C-Span video?

For further details, read the whole report.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Rasmussen

Graphic H/T: Mako Snark

SOTU Part II: Obama speaks with House GOP (Full Video)

 

While some House GOP members may have thought it was a good idea to tape Obama answering their questions, they utterly failed by not allowing follow up questions. Basically what we have is Obama talking to the camera with GOP members off camera and Obama being allowed to say one falsehood after another.  Without follow up questions, there was absolutely no way to call Obama on his bullshit. Thus Obama looks like he is batting GOP questions out of the park.

Take for example Obama said that the overwhelming majority of the healthcare debate was on C-SPAN. This is just a blatant lie, worse yet; Pelosi and Reid locked Republicans out of the process. Without a follow up questions, Obama’s lie is left to stand sounding like truth. 

Obama is even allowed to get away with saying he is not an ideologue, despite never really perusing anything but leftwing ideas on healthcare, the economy, national security and terror. The entire 85 minutes worked in Obama’s favor, by allowing him to use falsehoods to make himself look reasonable and responsible. In other words, Obama was allowed to repeat his State of the Union performance.

Now that Republicans have that one crucial vote to filibuster Obama’s agenda, Obama has clearly decided to start beating Repubicans with the “America wants bipartisanship” stick. This will not doubt play with the less principled members of the party, thus giving the Democrats their 60^th vote back and as is the case with the House, political cover. 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Politico

Scott Brown on Jay Leno's show

Shamelessly pinched from Left Coast Rebel's blog (damn you LCR, you find all the good stuff).

H/T: Left Coast Rebel

James O’Keefe issues a statement

James O’Keefe has released a statement at Big Government, explaining why he was at Mary Landrieu’s office. His explanation was that he was trying to see why Landrieu’s constituents were unable to reach her office by phone to voice their displeasure.

From Big Government: 

I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill.  When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.”  I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken.  In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working. 

In essence he was checking out the phone lines and not bugging them, as was the assumed case when the story broke. Since the authorities have the tape he made, we will have to wait to see his findings.

I for one was hoping for something a little juicier.  Did Landrieu shut down her phone lines rather than listen to her angry constituents? Probably, but was that story really worth the risk O’Keefe took?  Methinks not.

On the bright side, O’Keefe’s arrest had the side benefit of once again exposing the media’s bias. From MSNBC to the Washington Post, many of the mainstream media rushed to paint this story in the worst possible light. To a certain degree they were successful, even I allowed myself to pick up the false claim that O’Keefe was arresting for “bugging” Landrieu’s phone system [sorry, James].

Click here to read O’Keefe’s full statement.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Big Government

Via: Politico

Via: The Jawa Report

An Inconvenient Truth: Osama Bin Laden believes in Global Warming too

Sounding like a true disciple of Al Gore, Osama Bin Laden has released another tape to Al Jazeera blaming the United State for Climate Change.

"This is a message to the whole world about those responsible for climate change and its repercussions - whether intentionally or unintentionally - and about the action we must take," bin Laden said.

"Speaking about climate change is not a matter of intellectual luxury - the phenomenon is an actual fact."

"However, George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs.

"They are also behind 'globalisation and its tragic implications'. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money."

Osama Bin Laden sounds like your typical lefty radical who has not bother to read the ClimateGate emails. There is little difference in what he says and your typical Berkley student, including the gratuitous Bush bashing. What Bin Laden’s latest tirade says to me, is that Al Qaeda will latch on to anything to bash America. This is why Obama and much of the left are wrong about Gitmo being a recruiting tool. Even if they could close Gitmo, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would latch on to something else to bash America with, including the phony science of Climate Change.

I wonder how Al Gore feels about his new Climate Change disciple?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Al Jazeera

White House to DOJ: Find another location for KSM trial

The White House has asked the Department of Justice to find another venue for the Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed trial. After New Yorker backlash and Mayor Mike Bloomberg coming around, the White House has changed its tune. 

From The New York Daily News: 

The White House ordered the Justice DepartmentThursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would "prefer that they did it elsewhere" and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that's too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood," Bloomberg told reporters.

"There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City." MORE

Keep in mind that they still want to try the 9/11 suspects in American civilian court, but not in NYC.

I think this reversal has everything to do with politics and the aftermath of the Scott Brown victory. Public opinion was running high against having the trial in NYC. Yesterday when Sen. Kristen Gillbrand and Rep. Nydia Velazquez both came out against having the trial in NYC, I knew the tide might be turning. Obama and the Democrats must be fearful that New Yorker’s anger over the trial could have easily set the stage for another Massachusetts like upset in 2010.

Now the big question becomes, where are they going to move these trials to? If the Democrats fear another blue state stronghold upset, could they be so bold as to foist these trials on a red state where they already expect to lose?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Daily News

Via: The Weekly Standard

Sarah Palin calls out Obama for his “Credibility Gap”

Sarah Palin has posted a response to Obama’s State of the Union address on her Facebook page today. In her post, Palin pulls no punches and calls out Obama’s credibility gap for not having his deeds match his words.  From his double talk on lobbyists to his make believe attempts at bipartisanship, Palin details all of Obama’s false words. 

Palin’s take down, speaks to what I found so galling about he speech. Obama’s ability to lecture everyone despite his culpability in the very things he is scolding them about. This is exactly why we have House Reps and Justices making outbursts about his lies. 

The Credibility Gap

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it. 

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

- Sarah Palin 

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Sarah Palin’s Facebook Page