Well, Obama may well have found a way to unite Democrats and Republicans after all.

The Obama administration stunned New York's delegation Thursday, dropping the bombshell news that it does not support funding the 9/11 health bill.

The state's two senators and 14 House members met with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just hours before President Obama implored in his speech to the nation for Congress to come together and deliver a government that delivers on its promises to the American people.

So the legislators were floored to learn the Democratic administration does not want to deliver for the tens of thousands of people who sacrificed after 9/11, and the untold numbers now getting sick.

"I was stunned — and very disappointed," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who like most of the other legislators had expected more of a discussion on how to more forward.

..."She made it clear that the administration does not support any kind of funding mechanism that goes into the bill," said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel. "I think it's fiscal restraintÂ… but you know what? They find money for everything else, they need to find money for this," Engel said.

And how much do these greedy bastards want anyway? 11 Billion dollars! Not all at once mind you but spread out over the next 30 years. $366 million, give or take, a year.

For the people who tried to rescue survivors of the attack and then cleaned out the site Obama says...no. Money to defend terrorists in court? Sure, he's all for that.

This reminds me of the idea the jackass floated about charging the private insurance companies of veterans for service related injuries. Eventually that was dropped, just as this will be funded, but it's pretty clear who Obama stands with and who he doesn't.

Added (as my anger builds) You know what? I bet we've already spent more than one year's worth of this money on Haiti (probably more than the whole 11 billion) so here's my idea...no more money for Haiti until we take care of our people.

Now, I think we can and should do both but if it's a choice, I say help Americans. What does Barack Obama say?

Posted by: DrewM at 04:03 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.

He'll take a seat. Not the one he should have.

Thanks to EdwardR.

Posted by: Ace at 02:58 PM | Comments (72)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Blame Bush!

For not curing the nation of the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Because Obama thinks of himself as a blameless victim for everything he did.

[O]n March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying "Yes."

When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.

This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with "Yeas" coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

How is this possibly something that happened before Obama "walked in the door" when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval -- save Bush's signature, of course -- and the highest members of the current Administration -- including the president himself!!! -- supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House?

Sadly, Obama-loving media care not to address this inconvenient truth.

But that's just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn't Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure?

And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn't Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden?

Of course, he didn't, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later.

Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 01:41 PM | Comments (104)
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

First the Himalayan glaciers and now this.

Which is less credible...Obama's new found desire to restrain spending or the IPCC's scare mongering?

In the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), issued in 2007 by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), scientists wrote that 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest in South America was endangered by global warming.

But that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on numbers from a study by the World Wildlife Federation that had nothing to do with the issue of global warming -- and that was written by a freelance journalist and green activist.

The IPCC report states that "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation" -- highlighting the threat climate change poses to the Earth. The report goes on to say that "it is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems ... such as tropical savannas."

But it has now been revealed that the claim was based on a WWF study titled "Global Review of Forest Fires," a paper barely related to the Amazon rainforest that was written "to secure essential policy reform at national and international level to provide a legislative and economic base for controlling harmful anthropogenic forest fires."

EUReferendum, a blog skeptical of global warming, uncovered the WWF association. It noted that the original "40 percent" figure came from a letter published in the journal Nature that discussed harmful logging activities -- and again had nothing to do with global warming.

Well, forest fires are hot so that's close enough to man made warming, right? And as for it being a letter and not an actual scientific study, that's just details.

Besides according to the UN Climate gang, this is kind of endearing, right?

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, was quoted in the European press as saying, "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human? Even the IPCC is a human institution."

Look Frenchie (technically he's Belgian, whatever), you can submit anything you want but we don't have to pretend it's anything other that pure BS. I mean, it's not like we were previously under the impression all of this stuff was coming from robots. We know you are human and as such are prone to, how to put this? Making shit up if it gets you what you want (which is usually research grants and power).

But of course, the science is settled and poling holes into the UN report is really not sportsman like or something. Allow me to take a minute to preview how Gaia worshipers will calmly and in scientifically explain this, um, unfortunate incident...."Shut Up!".

Posted by: DrewM at 01:17 PM | Comments (75)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Breitbart goes right after him. There seems to be more to this clip, but we begin with Breitbart, as usual, going after a liberal like Michael Moore after a Krispy Kreme donut-tasting class. Correction: The clip actually begins just after Shuster introduces him, as I see now from the full MSNBC clip. It's just a two-second edit to jump into the action.

Again: How is it that a supposed objective journalist so easily finds himself arguing with partisans?

Doesn't it sort of take a partisan to get into a shouting fight with a partisan?

On Twitter, I just observed that David Shuster is the real sin at MSNBC. Olbermann and Maddow and Matthews are jokes, but they are commentators, and all commentators have an agenda.

Shuster, however, continues posing as a "reporter." A reporter? The asshole who grinned his stupid ass off as he made 30 rude references in a row regarding the word "tea bagger"?

Olbermann and Matthews are entitled to their opinions -- this is the paradigm of cable news.

But what the hell is this "reporter" doing airing them all of the time?

He's not a reporter. He's a small-market shock jock they send to cover hurricanes and car-chases.

He should be taken off the reporter beat immediately and made a guest commentator. Lord knows he could never carry his own show.

Via BookWomanBlue.

Shuster Flat-Out Lied to Book Me As a Guest: "No horse in this race," he wrote to Breitbart.

His tweets, collected up here, say otherwise.

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (152)
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

Actually, it's his response to a Bush SOTU, but do enjoy the symphony-like irony.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:40 AM | Comments (77)
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

He moved to an even more isolated patch of Vermont.

Posted by: Ace at 10:35 AM | Comments (67)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Any chance he'll take it?

Andrea Mitchell reports:

Sen Feinstein agrees with Mayor Bloomberg- KSM should not be tried in NYC.says situation changed after xmas day bomber. obama should change

That's smart, because when you reverse yourself, you can't admit you were wrong. (Well, normal people can, but not politicians, and especially not malignant narcissists like Obama.)

You need to say you were right before, but are right now, too, even as you do the exact opposite thing you did before.

You need to ascribe this to a change of circumstance, or a new experience previously denied you. George Bush the Elder did this in his abortion-switch, offering up a child's adopted baby (I think: the "little brown ones" or something) as having opened his eyes to the pro-life POV.

No one really bought it, but, you know: Cosmetic.

So, anyway, there's Captain Wonderful's out.

He won't take it, though.

It might hint that maybe he was wrong, which he never is.

Just ask him.

The press is against him, you know.

Posted by: Ace at 10:30 AM | Comments (48)
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama's not the only one doubling down on stupid.

Did I ever tell you the slogan on the masthead -- the Mencken quote -- I got from the quote-page (you know, the epigram, or whatever, that novels start with) from the Christopher Buckley book Wet Work?

Did I also tell you the book sucked and I never picked up another Buckley book again? And when, for example, a girlfriend tried to get me to see Thank You For Smoking, I refused, knowing it would be a precious, fey pile of repressed-cum-wannabe-lurid crap like Wet Work was?

Yeah. He sucks. He's always sucked.

He continues sucking.

One can do the whole verb-inflection exercise for the verb "to suck" with Christopher Buckley.

Obama didnÂ’t deliver a speech so much as a symphony...

Well that's not trite in the least. This rara avis just dropped a completely novel metaphor on you. A speech like a symphony.

Who but Buckley could make such an unexpected connection.

Good Lord, if I could just see inside his head, to watch the fireworks of creative foment burst and dazzle and sizzle into water...

You know what that would be like, if I could see that?

A fucking symphony, that's what.

It is hard, indeed almost impossible, not to like Mr. Obama.

Oh, you'd be surprised, Chris.

But a lot of things surprise you, don't they?

That's the advantage of being a fucking retard. The constant surprise and amazement at the unexpected glory of life.

And Nilla wafers. Retards love Nilla wafers.

In recent weeks, I’ve tried—tried my best.

To hate him, he means.

But Wednesday night he made it virtually impossible. Even discounting the perhaps 40 percent of the speech that consisted of the usual bromides and platitudes, even the most hardened skeptic must admit—the son of gun gives one hell of a speech.

Bromides and platitudes? My quibble here is that, once again, he resorts to the stock phraseology of writing about this crap.

What about nostrums, Rara Avis? At least toss me a good "nostrum." Nostrum only gets used in 40% of columns about speeches, as opposed to bromides and platitudes, which get used in 94%.

Rara avis.

Wet Work really sucked. I need you to understand this. At no point was I entertained, nor did I believe the book at all. It was about some kind of rich fat fuck (that part I believed: Write what you know) going all Rambo and shit on some drug smugglers or some other trite villain.

He got cutesy a lot, not funny but cutesy, which is like, oh, wow, the perfect tone for what is supposed to be a lurid revenge fantasy.

He was never funny and I never bought his Airwolf-level of action/military realism for a red hot second. Basically it was like Tom Clancy, minus the research, plus a cloying attempt to make his shitty style the main character, plus some queerbait punning.

When I say I put it down like six times before powering through this slight, annoying, noxious little fart of a book, I need you to understand: I finished American Psycho after putting it down only four times.

Just saying.

Just saying, Gee, it's not like he got his book deal based on his connection to his father or anything.

It's just he's a real fucking talent and shit.

You know what his books are like?

Symphonies, that's what

...

Tonight Mr. Obama proved—once again—that he hears the American music and can play it like a maestro.

Christ In Heaven, here we are with the music metaphor again.

Gee, when you came up with "symphony" (nice on that, by the way), how long did it take you to come up with the metaphor-extending notion of a "maestro"? Did you, like, sweat that one, Chris? When it finally came to you, after 0.22 seconds, were you like, "Zut alors! Le bon mot!"

How, Rara Avis, do you do it? You're like playing four-dimensional chess with the written word. You're like playing chess like... well, like it's a fucking symphony, and you're a maestro, except not a real maestro, but a maestro who moves chess pieces in between writing crappy lurid wannabe potboilers that only got reviewed well because all your former conservative supporters were so desperate for you to make it your own.

As well as Ronald Reagan.

"The Great Maestro," we used to call him. He cut taxes like a fucking symphony.

Both presidents had—have—have music in their souls.

If this fat nepot says crescendo I shall scream.

You do realize we are only like one step away from "soulpatterns" and "mindthoughts" here, right? "Soulmusic" and "mindsymphonies."

The other people in the room where I watched the speech were in tears by the end—the kind that stream down the face.

He just outed his wife and friends as mentally unstable emotionally-fragile neurotics.

This is like a symphony of tasteless personal disclosures. And Chris Buckley is like a... hmm... I'm on this symphony kick... who would be naturally associated with a symphony....? I know I had this question on the SATs...

Oh right:

MAESTRO: SYMPHONY ::

Chris Buckley: Fat Talentless Nepot Who Writes Shitty Unconvincing Books About Fat Talentless Nepots Who Go on Kill-Crazy Commando Raids In Between Homoerotic Flirtations With Their Regatta-Schedulers

I managed to hold those back.

Others cried, Chris Buckley did not. He was like a maestro of self-control.

But I could not hold back my admiration at the performance, in particular of Mr. ObamaÂ’s deep humanity, as evinced by his profound, almost Lincolnesque humor. Oh dear, are tears streaming down my face, one way or the other?

My best guess? Gun to my head?

Sure, is my answer, if I'm forced to go with one. I'd have to go with "Yes, Oh dear, those are tears streaming down your fat nepot face."

Your eyes are like making a symphony of joy or something. Like -- Oh! The Ode to Joy! That like works on two levels!

You're like a maestro of the bitch-swoon.

...

Thank you, Mr. President.

An electrifying evening, all in all. Well done. And yes, God bless the United States of America.

Phew. He didn't say "crescendo."

If he had, I would have had tears streaming down my face, too.

You stupid fat fuck.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Hat-Tip: I have hat-tipped this a bunch of times, so I didn't think a fresh one was due, but "beating my dick like it owes me money" is a commenter's invention, said during the Palin speech at the RNC, I believe by Warden.

I have tried to top that, riffing on it and extending it, like "beating my dick like it's Tina Turner and I just caught her on the phone with Berry Gordy," but there's no way to top that.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 AM | Comments (353)
Post contains 1165 words, total size 7 kb.

When you're on a sinking ship, you know how to find the higher ground?

Follow the stream of chittering, panicking rats.

Rats are stupid vermin, but they are survivors.

The Obama administration on Wednesday lost its most prominent backer of the plan to try the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks in Lower Manhattan when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said the trial should not be held in New York City.

The mayorÂ’s reversal was a political blow to the White HouseÂ’s efforts to resolve a landmark terror case a few blocks from where Al Qaeda hijackers rammed planes into the World Trade Center, a trial that the president saw as an important demonstration of American justice.

Mr. Bloomberg said that a more secure location, like a military base, would be less disruptive and less costly. His remarks echoed growing opposition from Wall Street executives, the real estate industry and neighborhood groups, who have questioned the burdens that such a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city.

“It’s going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people,” Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference in Brooklyn. “My hope is that the attorney general and the president decide to change their mind.“

Administration officials expressed chagrin at the mayorÂ’s statements, which appeared to come as a surprise. But there was no immediate talk of revising the decision to hold criminal trials for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his co-defendants in New York.

Of course there was no talk of revising the decision. The Great Oz never errs. Just ask him.

Via Gabe's Tweets again. On fire.

Not to belabor this point, but that is, after all, what I do here: Belabor points.

So, not to belabor this point, but Obama continues doubling down not just on his policies but on the PR tactic of selling himself as inevitable and invincible.

Reminds me of the Untouchables -- I want to write "Evitable" and "Vincible" on the wall.

(Not in blood, of course. I disown that part of the analogy. But yeah -- Evitable, and Vincible, you jackass. Peddle your Irresistible Force fantasy to your cultists.)

Posted by: Ace at 09:01 AM | Comments (87)
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.