Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:04 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Someone wrote me on Saturday I think to tell me that Coulter had dropped the p-bomb. "Are you sure?" I asked.

She did.

Yet another cult-y Obama indoctrination video, too.

When Republicans win back the White House in 2012, I personally intend to get on PTA panels (despite not having kids) and insist the schools preach the magnificence of Our Conservative Dear Leader once a week.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

So it's Monday. Yeah.

Item #1: "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - Ukulele Style
The ukulele gets no respect but it can still rock. And pretty much any song played on it sounds a little happier and nicely different as the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain show below:

Don't care for the ukulele? Well FYNQ. There's more: more...

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:59 PM | Comments (12)
Post contains 277 words, total size 5 kb.

You can not be serious.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal says he's talked to President Obama only once since taking command of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan over the summer, a revelation that drew swift criticism from some who are concerned that the president is putting off McChrystal's request for more troops.

"It's startling," Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., told FOX News.

McChrystal talked about his interaction with the president in an interview with CBS News.

"I've talked to the president since I've been here once on a (video teleconference)," he said.

"You talked to him once in 70 days?" CBS' David Martin asked.

"That's correct," McChrystal said.

...Gregg said that former President George W. Bush spoke with his then-top Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus, on a regular basis. He said that while Obama may be speaking regularly with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Petraeus, who is now head of Central Command, the president should still keep in regular contact with McChrystal.

"I would think you'd want to hear one-on-one from your field commander more than once in six months," he said.

Yeah, you'd think. Someone, I can't seem to remember who it was, called Afghanistan the "central front' in the fight against terrorist. Oh yeah, it was Obama.

Maybe Obama will find 10 or 15 minutes to give Gen. McChrystal a call from Air Force One while on his way to his way to Denmark to lobby for Chicago's Olympic bid.

Meanwhile back in Iraq (the bad war), Obama's choice to be ambassador there seems to be screwing things up royally.

American insiders in Baghdad say the relationship between the top U.S. commander there, Gen. Raymond Odierno, and the top civilian official there, Amb. Christopher Hill, is deteriorating rapidly. Old hands say the chill between the two brings to the bad old days of Sanchez vs. Bremer, when those two unfortunates barely would speak to each other as the American position fell apart in early 2004, along with Iraq itself.

What I am hearing is that Odierno is profoundly frustrated with Hill, who despite knowing almost nothing about Iraq has decided after a short time there that it is time to stand back and stop influencing the behavior of Iraqi officials on a daily basis. In addition, I am told, the ambassador believes the war is an Iraqi problem, not something that really concerns Americans anymore, despite the presence of 125,000 American soldiers. On the other hand, the diplomats respond, the military guys believe they have good relationships with Iraqi officials, but, the dips add, how would the soldiers really know?

It's almost as if electing a left-wing President with no executive experience (and precious little experience of any kind) might endanger national security.

Posted by: DrewM at 05:42 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

I know how much joy that brings many of you.

On the upside, should Romo fail to win this one, we can always pick on Dave in Texas. See? There's an upside to having to watch a Cowboys' game after all.

Jebus, listening to ESPN you'd think the Cowboys were the Lions or something. Come on, they are 1-1 and they lost the Giants. NFC East games are toss ups at best. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 04:27 PM | Comments (1)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

To be released Nov. 17th.

Posted by: Ace at 02:17 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Hm!

The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.

The site is seen as a major threat by Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Details of the talks emerged after John Bolton, America’s former UN ambassador, told a meeting of intelligence analysts that “Riyadh certainly approves” of Israel’s use of Saudi airspace.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

He's giving out like a thirty-three buck grant, so the competition is fierce.

"Hipster Doofus" is sublime:

And I'd meant to link "Racist Pixel" too:

...from Traction Control.

Thanks to gg.

Posted by: Ace at 01:19 PM | Comments (5)
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

This is old by now but I can't find stuff that grabs me and I need a quick post to break the blogging block.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.

For the first time ever, a slight plurality of voters now express doubt that the legislation will become law this year. Forty-six percent (46%) say passage is likely while 47% say it is not. Those figures include 18% who say passage is Very Likely and 15% who say it is Not at All Likely. Sixty percent (60%) are less certain.

...

The overall picture remains one of stability. TodayÂ’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the presidentÂ’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.

Intensity has been with the opposition from the beginning of the public debate. Currently, among all voters 23% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 43% are Strongly Opposed.

Also, from the beginning of the debate, the has been a huge partisan divide. Currently 75% of Democrats favor the plan. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans are opposed, as are 72% of the unaffiliated.

The reason?

As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.” A Rasmussen video report shows that 53% of those with insurance believe it’s likely they would have to change coverage if the congressional plan becomes law.

Well of course those who have coverage will lose out. That is the whole point, which cannot be disguised no matter how convoluted and circuitous they make the mechanism for taking from those who have and giving to those who don't. Even if they attempt to disguise the massive tax increase on those with coverage by constructing a fake "deficit neutral" federal balance sheet while shoveling all costs on to the states, which of course will have to raise taxes.

Whether the federal government is raising taxes or mandating the states raise taxes -- either way, that's Obama raising taxes.

I have said this until blue in the face, but the basic problem is this: When the middle class, which largely has health insurance, says they want health insurance "reformed," what they mean is that they want to pay less for the service, or get more from their payments, or both simultaneously. What they want, in other words, is what every political bloc wants: More for themselves. Nothing really objectionable or surprising in that.

Obama's plan is not merely wholly unresponsive to that desire, but in fact goes the opposite way. Under ObamaCare, those with health insurance will have to pay more for it -- now, apparently, through taxes the states will raise on the middle class, with the federal government pretending they had nothing to do that -- and services will necessarily be cut through rationing.

The middle class' agitation for health care "reform" is not motived, by and large, by a desire to pay more taxes or get less care to help out those without insurance. They want their own burdens reduced, and their own benefits increased.

Instead of paying less, they are being made to pay more.

Instead of receiving more, they are being made to receive less.

And this is ObamaCare's central political problem, and no supposedly-soaring speeches or deliberately-obscure funding mechanisms and rationing procedures will change that.

At the current moment, the middle class thinks their health care insurance could be cheaper and better, but, compared to the alternative of paying a lot more for a lot less, they're realizing their coverage is all right now.

And, as they say, if you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's "free."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 766 words, total size 5 kb.

This certainly hurts the interim government's moral standing but at some point something has to give.

Interim government leaders have suspended constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties in a pre-emptive strike against widespread rebellion Monday, three months to the day since they ousted President Manuel Zelaya in a military-backed coup.

Zelaya supporters said they would ignore the decree issued late Sunday and march in the streets as planned. Some already had arrived in the capital, Tegucigalpa, from outlying provinces.

The measures - announced just hours after Zelaya called on his backers to stage mass protest marches in what he called a "final offensive" against the government - are likely to draw harsh criticism from the international community, which has condemned the June 28 coup and urged that Zelaya be reinstated to the presidency and allowed to serve out his term, which ends in January.

Officials also issued an ultimatum to Brazil on Sunday, giving the South American country 10 days to decide whether to turn Zelaya over for arrest or grant him asylum and, presumably, take him out of Honduras. They did not specify what they would do after the 10 days were up.

I'm sure there will be talk of how the interim government is now as bad as Zelaya. Well, no, not really. This is a tough step and one they have put off for a substantial period of time. While it's unfortunate, to say the least, we shouldn't forget Honduras wouldn't be in this position if Zelaya, abetted by Chavez in Venezuela and Lula in Brazil, hadn't put the country in this position in the first place.

The question now is, will they proceed with the elections scheduled for November and will the suspension of rights be lifted in time for credible campaigns to be run?

The pressure will be on Interim President Roberto Michelett to deal with the imminent threat to the government and return to the normal constitutional regime as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, the country's already ailing economy is at the point of total collapse.

Hondurans flocked to supermarkets, gasoline stations, pharmacies and banks today after the acting government lifted a nationwide, soldier-enforced curfew this morning. The capitalÂ’s airport reopened for domestic flights, EFE news agency reported.

The curfew has cost the Central American nationÂ’s $14.1 billion economy $50 million a day, said Jesus Canahuati, vice president of the local chapter of the Business Council of Latin America. Honduras has lost as much as $200 million in investment since the military ousted Zelaya from office June 28, he said.

“Those are numbers that aren’t sustainable in Honduras,” Canahuati said by telephone from San Pedro Sula. “We’re a poor country, and many people won’t eat if there’s no work.”

A rare bit of good news from the US on this front...the US Ambassador to the Organization of American States called Zelaya "irresponsible and foolish" for returning to Honduras absent a politcal settlement.

Such are the times we live in when that's actually news and unexpected good news at that.

Posted by: DrewM at 10:37 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 522 words, total size 4 kb.