Is Obama Supporting Communist Terrorists?

How this hell did this Investors.com report not make the Top Story?  (h/t William Teach and Roger Kimball)

Barack Obama, it seems, sent a delegation meet with FARC leaders in February.  According to letters found on the hard drive of the room-temperature terrorist, Raul Reyes, Obama’s people have taken sides with FARC against Columbia’s Uribe.

In a Feb. 28 letter, FARC chieftain Raul Reyes cheerily reported to his inner circle that he met “two gringos” who assured him “the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support ‘Plan Colombia’ nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement).”

Aside from some interesting possibilities about who these “gringos” are – a congressional delegation did visit Ecuador and an international leftist “congress” was held in Quito around this time – the real question is why anyone secretly consorting with FARC would be able to speak for presidential candidate Obama.

Who, indeed?  On the heels of the Canadian-NAFTA secret meetings, we can discern a pattern here.  Obama and his apparatchiki are conducting a shadow foreign policy  that appears aimed at (a) damaging the official White House policy and (b) creating strong ties to enemies of freedom. 

Perhaps the FBI needs to look more closely as Senator Obama’s ties. 

UPDATE:  You gotta love this paragraph from roguejew:

You’ve got to hand it to the terrorists. Their analysis of Obama is right on. He’s against free trade and he’s open to having tea and crumpets with nations that support terrrorism.

Precisely.

Scientific Consensus Is Not Science

Here [DailyTech] and elsewhere I see many greenhouse believers hanging their hats on “scientific consensus,” as if it were the equal of scientific proof. That’s disturbing. (h/t Evan Jones blogging on WattsUpWithThat.)

When Drs. Marshall and Warren discovered that ulcers were primarily caused by bacterial infection, the scientific consensus was to deprive them of their licenses to practice medicine. One hundred percent of gastro-intestinal physicians and researches agreed that over-production of acid caused stomach ulcers.

Recently, Marshall and Warren shared a Nobel prize for standing athwart scientific consensus, yelling, “Stop!”

Analogising from Marshall and Warren does nothing to disprove the climate change consensus. But it does illustrate some of the possible motivations and incentives that can underlie those who make these claims. There may be consensus on an issue, but it does not follow that the consensus is correct. If evidence displaces a consensus, then that consensus is useless and should change. Those who engage in advocacy using petitions and polls would do well to remember this. [source]

I agree with Jason Briant, a research fellow at the Institute for Public Affairs. We should be very careful about passing laws with serious economic impacts on mere theory, however popular the theory may be. We should be even more careful when the proponents of the that theory stand to make more money if the theory holds true.

UPDATE: Proof of the fallibility of science came, presciently, with news that a Nobel laureate retracted her findings that earned her Nobel prize. Consider this when you’re deciding whether or not to support restrict, freedom-limiting laws based on mere speculation.

New York Times: Obama an Empty Suit

Have you ever you ever learned that, on some important matter, you agreed with the views of someone whose views you always find repulsive, stupid and reprehensible?

I read the lengthy New York Times story about Obama’s uselessness in the US Senate yesterday. I was too confused to write. Could it be that NYT — the liberalest of liberal papers, the international bastion of anti-Americanism, the newspaper of fraud and everything unholy — was calling Obama a waste of Senate oxygen?

he did not play a significant role in passing much other legislation and disappointed some Democrats for not becoming a more prominent voice in other important debates.

Moreover, the New York Times does more damage to Obama’s anti-war claims than any of his Democrat or Republican opponents have done:

He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war – he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field.

After reading the article, I’m left with the impression that Obama would be the kind of president America needs when all is right with the world. In other words, the 1990s, when an American SWOT analysis reveals many Strengths and Opportunities but few Weaknesses or Threats.

In a time of trouble, domestic or foreign, America would suffer greatly from a facial president, a politician-turned-actor. It would be Jimmy Carter all over again, except with Muslim barbarians at the gate.

As if being called a do-nothing Senator by America’s most liberal newspaper weren’t bad enough, Ed Morrissey blogs that The Baltimore Sun has discovered Obama’s lied, again, about his financial ties to Tony Rezko. Yesterday, the foreign policy adviser forced to resign from Obama’s campaign after she called Hillary a “monster,” turned on her former master by declaring that Obama has no plans for Iraq [Gateway Pundit].

Throwing It Away

Roger Kreutz dashed to right a wrong. A tiny wrong, by modern standards, but a wrong nonetheless. “Dammit,” Roger might have thought, “you can’t even enjoy a quiet cup of coffee anymore.” Then he sprang into action.

Aaron Poisson has a girlfriend and a car. And he’s out of high school. That’s a liberating combination to a young man. The boundaries of his youth–walls to many young men aching to break the chains of childhood–are far behind him. Atlanta’s no longer big enough for Aaron, so he grabbed his honey and headed West, to Cincinnati and St. Louis. One hundred thirty years ago, Aaron would have been a pioneer. Today, he’s more of a drifter.

Gary Poisson described his son’s stunt as “a silly, sophomoric misdemeanor gone horribly, tragically wrong.”  It was “poor judgement” and “stupidity” and “petty theft.  It was wrong.”  But Aaron, nineteen, and his girlfriend, 21, are not malicious.  He was in St. Louis to visit St. Louis University and Washington University with the possibility of attending one or the other in the fall.  Gary says his son is a good kid who, since meeting his present girlfriend, has shown a propensity for doing stupid, impulsive things, like reaching into tip jars.

On March 4, 2008, Gary’s son walked into a Starbuck’s in St. Louis County. Aaron’s girlfriend bought a drink. Aaron waited until she’d secured the beverage, then reached into the tip jar, extracted five dollars and twenty cents, then fled the store.

Roger was the kind of guy who should have been near Ground Zero on September 11.  He would have rushed into the burning Towers to save lives and, maybe, smash a few terrorists heads had they somehow survived the impact. Roger might have been in the First Lady’s booth at a State of the Union Address for some act of selfless heroics.  If only his selfless act of heroism had involved some larger crime or tragedy.

How Roger learned that Aaron had stolen the contents of the tip jar is unknown. At least, it’s not discernible from the security tape that shows Aaron stealing the money. But Roger knew there was a wrong to be righted, and, since no one else was stepping up, Roger would.

Aaron and his gal were in their car. Roger was on foot. Aaron backed up to get out of there. Roger went down. The car backed over Roger then took off.  In fewer than 24 hours, Roger died from the injuries sustained in Aaron’s getaway.

Aaron’s petty crime became a string of felonies in less than one minute.  Roger’s compulsion to make things right left him dead.

Gary Poisson understands the long-term consequences of impulsive acts.  One stupid decision can lead remarkably tragic consequences.  An act of childish thievery too small to make the crime section of the Suburban Journal winds up on NBC News because of the lethal coming-together of a teenage boy, a girl, a car, and a hero.

Aaron Poisson faces charges of involuntary manslaughter, leaving the scene of an accident, and misdemeanor larceny.  His girlfriend was not charged, apparently, because she’s not a man.  Gary Poisson’s funeral is Monday, March 10.   Righteous bloggers and talk-show callers want Aaron hanged.

I want God to rewind the tape a week in hopes that, upon further review, someone–anyone–did something just a little bit differently.

Listen to the interview with Gary Poisson on KMOX.com

Read more on stltoday.com

Democrat Congress Bad for Economy

We are in for the worst economy since . . . the last time Democrats controlled Congress.

I compared three economic numbers from the January 1994, when Democrats lost control of Congress and January 2007, when they took Congress back.  Then looked at what’s happened since.  It isn’t pretty

  January 1995 January 2007 January 2008
Unemployment 5.6 4.9 4.9
Prime 8.5 6.98 7.5
Inflation 2.8 2.85 6.8

You can’t blame anyone for these numbers except the Democrats.  From the time he took office until the time Newt took the gavel, Clinton’s economy was flat.  Al Gore said, in 1993, that 2 percent GDP growth was all that Americans could expect.  In that same year, Clinton said that the federal budget would remain unbalanced for at least 20 years.

Gore and Clinton were wrong, of course, because the American people did something about it: the elected Republicans.

ABCNews Gives Up on Global Warming

ABCNews gave up on a section of its web site dedicated to scaring people to death about global warming. [Link corrected]

The site is still up, but no new material has hit the site since September 2007, when the coldest winter on record began.

 I know that liberals are cowards, liars, frauds, and criminals, but I didn’t think they were this shallow.  To just stop posting when the news turned against them? 

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a KGB front group left over from the 1980s [click and click and again], has not updated its global warming action blog since December.  Until then, they were posting at least weekly.   They just can’t talk global warming with a straight face.

On ICECAP.com, a report on a former Global Warming Alarmist scientist whose come full circle on the issue of greenhouse gases. 

Miklos Zagoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was. That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center.

Unfortunately, most “climate” scientists are frauds hoping to cash in on the international hysteria they’re creating.  Check their investments and their funding, folks.  It’s all a scam.   

Final thought:  Even if the alarmists were right and human activity, alone, was responsible for a 1 degree C increase in global temperature through 100 years of concerted effort to pollute and molest the planet, so what? God just reversed that in one winter.  Are you really so full of yourself to believe that you could stop an Ice Age if the forces of God and nature decided to visit one upon us?  And you seriously want me to believe that you, with carbon credits and hybrid cars, could prevent the earth from frying if the sun’s energy output doubled? 

What a bunch of losers.

UPDATE:  Wow.  I’ve picked an interesting investigation.  If you’re in need of fresh global warming news from the world’s leading alarmists, you’re in trouble.  The Global Warming International Center hasn’t refreshed since April 2007!  Where are the Chicken Littles when we need them?

Liberalism = Terrorism

Now that we’re winning the war, the left is ratcheting up its anti-military hatemongering–all the way to terrorism.  If the Congressmen who received the letters knew what was coming, they should taken out and shot, along the perp who did it.  

Today, leftist terrorists bombed a U. S. Armed Forces recruitment center in New York.  This domestic terrorism should be met with lethal force. 

California Senator Diane Fienstein, in an e-mail, reported that members of the House of Representatives received letters with a photo of the perp and a copy of his political manifesto.  (Great reading, I’m sure.)

The left will blame Bush and the Republicans, since liberals are incapable of commiting crimes. 

The left is downplaying the attack, as seen in the NYTimes’ minimalist headline.  The NYT story attempts to link the bombing two other incidents involving foreign embassies.  On the right, pundits seem subdued.  Michelle Malkin and even Black Five took it in stride. I guess we’re getting used to being abused and terrorized by liberals in America.  Gateway Pundit is more worked up, as am I. 

The 10 letters that were mailed in advance of the bombing were addressed to Democrats.  Why?  What did these 10 New York Democrats know, and when did they know it?  Why did Diane Feinstein know abou the letters so early, maybe even before the police?

Ed Morrissey, too, wonders why the letters went to Democrats who are on the bomber’s side?  He also notes them Michelle Malkin reports more Congressmen may have received the letters.

After Tuesday

Karl Roves cites three possible affects of the prolonged Democrat nomination process on John McCain’s chances:

1. Clinton and Obama bloody each other, leaving the Democrats with a “damaged goods” candidate for the general election.

2. The excitement of a brokered convention draws millions of sideliners into the political process, mostly on the Democrat side, giving whoever wins that party’s nomination a leg up.

3. The protracted race pushes McCain off the front pages, allowing the Democrats to define McCain in any light they choose.

I say 2 and 3 are aspects of the same effect. Therefore, only two outcomes are possible: McCain wins or McCain loses.

How McCain Wins

Clinton Inc. will try to destroy Obama. They will pull out more trash than even I will. They will spin every utterance and past activity from Obama as a sinister plot by the junior Senator to overthrow the world. Instead of Daffy and Bugs, it’ll be Pinky and the Brain. Press scrutiny of Obama, and Obama’s decidedly poor handling of confrontation, dulls the shine on the “new messiah.” Clinton shine was dulled years ago.

Under this scenario, if Obama wins the nomination, Clinton supporter (many) defect to McCain because Obama is too wimpy and pacifistic. McCain wins.

If Hillary gets the nod, disaffected Obama worshipers drop out of the political arena. They already equate Hillary with McCain as Washington insiders who represent big corporations. If Clinton wins, they’ll cry foul, particularly if she does with Florida and Michigan wins. Conspiracy theories will run amock, and they’ll be right.

How McCain Loses

Clinton and Obama rise above the tendancy to destroy each others’ character. McCain can’t buy space in a major news outlet, and disappears until the convention. In a civil convention, the SuperDelegates choose the party’s nominee based on electability.

If the nominee is Obama, the messiah march continues right up to a popular and electoral landslide of the Reaganesque proportions.

If Hillary is the nominee, a tough battle with McCain goes to the Dems in a close race decided on “he’s too old” or “he’s the past.”

My Bet

McCain has more influence than some think. By being outlandishly conservative, getting Phil Gramm and Jack Kemp out front, and spending lots on television, he can keep his name in the paper, energize the conservative base, and reach people who are getting sick of the Democrats.

Clinton will savage Obama, and Obama won’t handle scrutiny well. Obama might still win the nomination, but he’ll truly be damaged goods. McCain will have to run the perfect campaign, but he can beat Obama.

If Clinton wins, she’ll be seen as a shrew. Obama’s support is NOT political, it’s religious. So his followers will abandon politics (at least 30 percent will, anyway). Without them, McCain wins in a cake walk.

Bottom Line: Barring some unforseen event, Hillary cannot win the White House, McCain probably won’t, and the race is Obama’s to lose.

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey and Andrew Sullivan have the same take on Obama’s supporters as I do.

Crappily Evernafta

Technorati Tags: ,,,,

 

Something happened on the way to the coronation: the truth hit Barack Obama square in the face.

Noam Scheiber of The New Republic previously dismissed the NAFTA-Canuk story, now admits the story has legs:

Two things make it problematic for the Obama campaign: 1.) The sudden appearance of this lurid-sounding memo written by a Canadian consular official. I don’t think it’s particularly revealing–as I said this morning, it reflects what the Canadians thought they heard from Goolsbee; there are, significantly, no direct quotes. But the term "memo" just sounds bad–as though there were some cover-up that’s now falling apart. 2.) Certain Obama officials denied last week that there was any contact between the Obama campaign and the Canadian government about NAFTA. That’s clearly no longer "operative," as Howard Wolfson pointed out on the call. While the memo story is a little ambiguous on its own–the Canadian official claims Goolsbee said one thing; he claims he said another–the Obama campaign’s previous denials will make the press view their current claims more skeptically.

Combined with the slow leak coming from the Rezko story, strong numbers for Hillary in Ohio, and reports of a late break toward Hillary in Texas, and tomorrow could add up to a disaster for the socialist canidate Obama.

John Fund elaborates on the bad news for Obama on the Rezko front in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Yet how he [Obaman] rose so quickly in Chicago’s famously suspect politics — and who his associates were there — has received little scrutiny.

That may change today as the trial of Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Mr. Obama’s friend of two decades and his campaign fund-raiser, gets under way in federal court in Chicago. Mr. Rezko, a master fixer in Illinois politics, is charged with money laundering, attempted extortion, fraud and aiding bribery in an alleged multimillion dollar scheme shaking down companies seeking state contracts.

The WSJ story is good reading.  Fund details Rezko’s curious connections to an Iraqi billionaire living London.  The Iraqi was convicted by a French court in the largest European scandal since WWII, according to Fund.  Pay attention to this name:  Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi billionaire:

Mr. Obama says he has "no recollection" of meeting Mr. Auchi during a 2004 trip the billionaire made to Chicago, and no one believes he knew of his background.

Barack Obama also had no contact, whatsoever, with the Canadian government regarding NAFTA–until we learned he did. 

Bob Novak squeezes the pertinent facts into a single a paragraph that should find its way into every journalism textbook ever to be written:

Obama bought a mock Georgian mansion on Chicago’s south side on June 15, 2005, the same day Rezko’s wife bought a plot next door from the same seller. Obama then purchased from Rezko another parcel at above-market value. Federal prosecutors recently revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire who lives in London, wired $3.5 million to the financially strapped Rezko in Chicago less than a month before the Obama-Rezko purchases. James Bone, investigative reporter for the Times of London, wrote last Tuesday that "the money transfer raises the question of whether funds" from Auchi "helped" Obama buy his house.

Obama appears shadier by the minute.  No wonder Hillary was proud to share the stage with him.

The Science That Dare Not Speak Its Name

The Catholic Church is often wrongly accused of suppressing science throughout the so-called Dark Ages.  Legend has it that the Church used her secular influence over divine-right monarchs to thwart scientific inquiry.

It’s all hooey, of course. During the Medieval period, the lack of an economic system that generated surplus left the Church alone to advance science, translate texts, and preserve history.

But that’s a different story.

Al Gore and his band of merry thought police are doing to science what the left claims the church did–slitting the throats of anyone who dares speak heresies against the Global Warming god.

The founder of Weather Channel, today, attacked his Frankensteinian monster for its intolerance and abandonment of science.  From the Business and Media Institute:

“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”

"Coleman" is John Coleman who founded the channel in 1982.  His network now serves as the EWTN of the World Church of Human Hatred.

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

If Heidi Cullen is not a heroine addict who spoke in the throes of a junk-crave, then she is a fascist who destroy science, logic, and life itself to advance the cause of this bizarre new religion founded by L. Ron Algore.

I get my weather from Accuweather.com.  It may as fascist as The Weather Channel, but I have no evidence as yet.

In the meantime, WattsUpWithThat.com is the best climatology blog on the frigid planet.