The Silly News of the Week

What’s wrong with this picture? Illegal aliens and terrorists from Islamic countries are flooding into the United States on a daily basis, but a little boy in the UK has been denied a vacation to Disney World with his grandparents by US Immigration because he reportedly posed a “threat” of not leaving the country after his vacation.

Seriously. No Joke!

The story was in the UK Telegraph.

Way to go Janet! Yeah, we have to keep 9 year old British schoolkids out of the country, they are evil!

Mexican Drug Cartels, Coyotes, criminals, and gangs on the other hand, not so much…


TUSCON SHOOTING UPDATE: The Far Left at NPR are having a moment of “Brown Relief” over Jared Lee Loughner.

More brilliant insight coming from NPR.

Daisy Hernandez, former editor of ColorLines magazine, is relieved that Jared Loughner is a “gringo” or white man rather than a “brown” man after the shootings over the weekend.

From NPR:

I wasn’t the only person on Saturday who rushed to her Android when news came of the Tucson shooting.

What I wanted to know was the killer’s surname.

My eyes scanned the mobile papers. I held my breath. Finally, I saw it: Jared Loughner. Not a Ramirez, Gonzalez or Garcia. It’s safe to say there was a collective sigh of brown relief when the Tucson killer turned out to be a gringo.

I admit sadly that it was only after I saw the shooter’s gringo surname that I was able to go on and read the rest of the news about those who lost their lives on Saturday and those who, like Rep. Giffords, were severely wounded.

Which side is bringing up the race issue again? (

But don’t worry, if you complain to NPR you’ll be the racist!🙂


Illinois, ignoring the axiom that when you tax something you get less of it, expects economic activity to be unaffected by these disincentives and expects the added revenues to close a $15 billion budget shortfall. Ignoring another axiom — that when you’re in a hole, stop digging — the legislation that Gov. Pat Quinn signed allows a 2% increase in spending.

In addition to its budget shortfall, Illinois owes $6 billion to vendors and has unfunded pension liabilities estimated to be as high as $78 billion.

“It’s like living next door to ‘The Simpsons’ — you know, the dysfunctional family down the block,” Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate, said in an interview on Chicago’s WLS-AM. Daniels notes that Illinois-based Caterpillar recently chose to make a major investment in Indiana with a plant to build locomotives in Muncie.

According to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, the tax hike would force Illinois businesses to pay the highest combined national-local corporate tax rate in the industrialized world.

And you know the liberals will be both surprised and angry (at business) when it falls flat on it face.

It was your fault!!🙂

Americans for Tax Reform found that the average personal income-tax rate in states losing seats was a high 6.05%. The average rate in states gaining seats was a more modest 2.8%. Per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for the gainers, $5,117 for the losers. (IBD)


Tom Brokaw on MSDNC:

Gun control is too simple a phrase to define all the complications and nuances of it, frankly. In Arizona they have a wide open system. I would be nervous about going into a bar or restaurant in Arizona on a Saturday night where people can carry concealed without permits.

Gee, thanks Tom for your uninformed, hyberbolic, liberal BS. Don’t bother coming then.

Go to Illinois instead, they’ll need the cash.


<Bill> Maher said that Tea Party members are crude and poorly educated, people who the founding fathers would have wanted to keep far from political influence.

“The one thing they never argued about was that political power must stay in the hands of the smartest people,” said Maher, “and out of the hands of the dumbest loudmouths slowing down the checkout line at Home Depot.”

Gee, thanks Bill. I always value the opinion of a Liberal Marxist Elitist who things he’s funny.

Yeah, I’ll take that under advisement.


Chris “tingle up my leg” Matthews ‘Journalist’ at MSDNC:

“Sam, it seems to me it is a big question,” Matthews said. “So much of this attack on Obama has been ad hominem – directed at the person of the president, whether it’s somebody – some cracker out there on the right calling him — some birther-type who says he’s not an American or someone more sophisticated but basically saying he’s a socialist. Will this be on the merits of the bill? Will it stay off the personal? Is it your hunch coming into Wednesday’s vote?”

Ad hominem much, Chris?  hateful much?? And that softball question was squishy you have to squeeze Lake Michigan out of it!

So on that note, the culmination of this silliness with a compilation of sorts.

A shameful week for America’s liberal elites. The top 10 most ridiculous left-wing attacks on US conservatives following the Arizona shootings

By Nile Gardner, UK Telegraph

I have compiled below a list of some of the most egregious examples of Leftist hysteria over the past week. It is by no means an exhaustive list – this list could easily be expanded to 20 or 30 further instances, especially crude statements from liberal politicians. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was among the very first to link the mass shooting to conservatives, and two of his hugely irresponsible pieces feature in the list below. The list also includes a major article from American Guardian writer Michael Tomasky, as an example of how the Left-wing vitriol of the last week emanated not only from the east and west coasts of the United States, but also in some cases from across the Atlantic.

So here is my top 10 list, which Telegraph readers will no doubt wish to add to in their comments.

1. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 8, 2011

We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was. She’s been the target of violence before. And for those wondering why a Blue Dog Democrat, the kind Republicans might be able to work with, might be a target, the answer is that she’s a Democrat who survived what was otherwise a GOP sweep in Arizona, precisely because the Republicans nominated a Tea Party activist.

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate.

2. Keith Olbermann, MSNBC, January 8, 2011

This morning in Arizona, this time of the ever-escalating, borderline-ecstatic invocation of violence in fact or in fantasy in our political discourse, closed. It is essential tonight not to demand revenge, but to demand justice; to insist not upon payback against those politicians and commentators who have so irresponsibly brought us to this time of domestic terrorism, but to work to change the minds of them and their supporters – or if those minds tonight are too closed, or if those minds tonight are too unmoved, or if those minds tonight are too triumphant, to make sure by peaceful means that those politicians and commentators and supporters have no further place in our system of government.

If Sarah Palin, whose website put and today scrubbed bullseye targets on 20 Representatives including Gabby Giffords, does not repudiate her own part in amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics, she must be dismissed from politics – she must be repudiated by the members of her own party, and if they fail to do so, each one of them must be judged to have silently defended this tactic that today proved so awfully foretelling, and they must in turn be dismissed by the responsible members of their own party.

3. Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, Press Conference, Tucson, January 8, 2011

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

4. Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, January 9, 2011

Republicans and even Tea Partiers will have the sense – again, for a while – to steer clear of directly gun-related rhetoric. We won’t be hearing much in the near term about “second amendment remedies” and insurrection and so forth. But this will be temporary. Guns are simply too central to the mythology of the American right, as is the idea of liberty being wrested from tyrants only at gunpoint. For the American right to stop talking about armed insurrection would be like American liberals dropping the subjects of race and gender. It’s too encoded in conservative DNA.

… Direct responsibility for what happened Saturday? No. Mentally ill people are mentally ill. The Beatles weren’t responsible for the messages that Charles Manson heard in their music. But there’s a difference. Paul McCartney had no earthly reason to think that an innocent song about a fairground ride (Helter Skelter) would lead a man to commit barbarous acts of murder. Today’s Republicans and conservative commentators, however, surely understand the fire they’re playing with. But they do it, and a tragedy like Saturday’s won’t stop them, as long as they can maintain a phoney plausible deniability and as long as hate continues to pay dividends at the ballot box.

5. Paul Krugman, The New York Times, January 9, 2011

it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

… So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before? If Arizona promotes some real soul-searching, it could prove a turning point. If it doesn’t, Saturday’s atrocity will be just the beginning.

6. Michael Daly, The New York Daily News, January 9, 2011

But anyone with any sense at all knows that violent language can incite actual violence, that metaphor can incite murder. At the very least, Palin added to a climate of violence.

And, now that Palin may have the blood of more than some poor caribou on her hands, I wonder if she will continue putting people in cross hairs and calling on folks to RELOAD!

7. George Packer, The New Yorker, January 10, 2011

But it won’t do to dig up stray comments by Obama, Allen Grayson, or any other Democrat who used metaphors of combat over the past few years, and then try to claim some balance of responsibility in the implied violence of current American politics. (Most of the Obama quotes that appear in the comments were lame attempts to reassure his base that he can get mad and fight back, i.e., signs that he’s practically incapable of personal aggression in politics.)

In fact, there is no balance—none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats.

Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

8. Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva, in an interview with The Huffington Post, January 8, 2011

“The climate has gotten so toxic in our political discourse, setting up for this kind of reaction for too long. It’s unfortunate to say that. I hate to say that,” Grijalva said in an interview with The Huffington Post. “If you’re an opponent, you’re a deadly enemy,” Grijalva said of the mindset among Arizona extremists. “Anybody who contributed to feeding this monster had better step back and realize they’re threatening our form of government.”

Grijalva said that Tea Party leader Sarah Palin should reflect on the rhetoric that she has employed. “She — as I mentioned, people contributing to this toxic climate — Ms. Palin needs to look at her own behavior, and if she wants to help the public discourse, the best thing she could do is to keep quiet.”

9. Harold Meyerson, The Washington Post, January 12, 2011

The primary problem with the political discourse of the right in today’s America isn’t that it incites violence per se. It’s that it implants and reinforces paranoid fears about the government and conservatism’s domestic adversaries.

Much of the culture and thinking of the American right – the mainstream as well as the fringe – has descended into paranoid suppositions about the government, the Democrats and the president. This is not to say that the left wing doesn’t have a paranoid fringe, too. But by every available measure, it’s the right where conspiracy theories have exploded. A fabricated specter of impending governmental totalitarianism haunts the right’s dreams.

… That doesn’t make Beck, Erickson, Rupert Murdoch and their ilk responsible for Tucson. It does make them responsible for promoting a paranoid culture that makes America a more divided and dangerous land.

10. Jane Fonda, Twitter, January 8, 2011

And finally, Oscar-winning actress and liberal darling Jane Fonda emerged from hibernation and delivered some of the most tasteless tweets in the brief history of Twitter, brazenly exploiting the shooting of a Congresswoman to make a monumentally shallow political attack. (hat tip: NewsBusters)

@SarahPalinUSA holds responsibility. As does the violence-provoking rhetoric of the Tea Party 2:51 PM Jan 8th via Echofon

@glenbeck guilty too. Shame. It must stop! 2:20 PM Jan 8th via Seesmic Web

Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site. Inciting to violence. 2:11 PM Jan 8th via Echofon

But don’t worry, according to the Left, they are the most tolerant, sensitive, rational, mature, caring, loving and Intellectually Superior beings on this planet.

Just ask them.

We’re doomed.🙂

Political Cartoon

More IPCC Errors Exposed

The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

Say What??!!!!😦

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

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.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

“Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

Why did they do it? Because it fit their politics. The “Evidence” fit what they want to accomplish.

It’s Not Science, it’s just politics.

Making them Political Scientists, not actual Scientists.

“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to “assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: “I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”

Because it’s not scientific?? Next thing you know the world will be flat because that’s what it looks to us down her on the surface!!🙂

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel’s vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

The Religion of Global Warming, overwhelms Science.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: “The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed.”

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: “The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

“It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives.”

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.(UK Telegraph)

NYTimes: Now, there’s a danger that the uproar over the IPCC’s erroneous paragraph could overshadow the scientific group’s broader conclusions about the effects of climate change, said Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“Focusing on a mouse and ignoring the elephant would be a mistake,” he told reporters yesterday, especially since independent assessments by the National Academy of Sciences, the federal government and other sources echo the IPCC’s overall findings.

The Elephant in the room, dear reader, is that THEY ARE LYING!!! and they keep getting caught at it. And they all take the Liberal political dismissive route of “there’ nothing to see, it’s meaningless, it only a small error. Not big deal. get over it.”

Now, in science, if your wrong. Or if you make errors that means your theory is not correct.

Not not in Politics.

And this is Politics. Not Science.

Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, said scientists make mistakes all the time “and it isn’t a big deal.”

Well, that makes me feel better😦

And the kicker:

Dr. Murari Lal, the scientist behind the bogus claim about melting Himalayan glaciers, suggested over the weekend that the panel intentionally ignored the facts.

The statement “related to several countries in this region and their water sources,”Lal told the London paper The Mail. “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

The Mail concluded that the comments were included “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”(Times)

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

Now, you can’t write comedy like that.

A comedy of errors, that is.

And with comedy comes tragedy.

The tragedy of the degradation and politicization of the Scientific Method by the left for their own needs for power and control.

It’s as corrupted now as everything they touch.

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.

Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ‘Our procedure is robust,’ he added. (Daily Mail)

I hate “robust”. It’s a Liberal code-word for shut up.

No amount of errors or misrepresentations of facts will stop the Global warming Religionists though.

Their Agenda is the Agenda!

Much Like Dear ole’ Speaker Pelosi:

“We will move on many fronts — any front we can,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat herself, said Thursday. “We must take whatever time it takes to do it. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people.”

Interesting, that usage of the word “for.” “Against” would be a more accurate description. Americans simply don’t want what Washington’s Democrats are selling — and it’s not because they don’t know what’s in the 2,000-page bills. It’s because they do know what’s in them. (IBD)

The Bulls of Liberal Group DoubleThink are wrecking our China shop….

Love Labors Lost

The Honeymoon is over.

Now it’s time for the in-fighting.

A Separation?

A Divorce?

The Congressional Democrats, and even the Europeans are so over “Mr. Hope & Change” Obama.

Hope has become Nope.

He ran as something he’s not and never has been: A post-partisan centrist transformative healer. That’d be a difficult trick to pull off even for somebody with any prior executive experience, someone who’d run something, like a state, or even a town, or even a commercial fishing operation, like that poor chillbilly boob Sarah Palin.

“In his world,” wrote the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes, “everything is political and everything is about appearances.” (IBD)

And those appearances have been deceiving. But when ripped off, the expose an ugly underbelly.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who supported Obama’s $787 billion stimulus a year ago, says the president needs to be much more forceful about how, where and why the money was spent if Democrats are going to get credit for attacking the recession in an era of double-digit unemployment.

“I think the administration needs to be much more aggressive, and hopefully the president will outline some of this in his State of the Union address,” she said. “We very much need leadership from the executive on this. You can’t just put money out there — even if we had it to put it out there — unless it’s going to produce an actual new job.”

The Super ultra-leftist Sen Feinstein complaining about the stimulus and jobs?

Now that’s amazing.

Here, I thought the Stimulus  was a marvelous success and the recession was over, according to Democrats. They “saved or created” over a million jobs, so they said pompously.

That is, prior to the Massachusetts Massacre.

Administration officials say they get it — with Axelrod recently admitting that Obama’s team is recalibrating and refocusing on the economy. Emanuel, for his part, is now pushing for a stripped-down health care bill that could be passed within a few weeks and force Republicans, for a change, to take a few tough votes.

That may mollify some Democratic moderates, but it will further infuriate the liberals, who insist that the lesson of Massachusetts is that Obama has come on too weak, not too strong. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman captured the left’s winter of discontent Thursday with a blog post in which he wrote that he’s “pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”(Politico)

At the moment, the whole cacophonous crew seems to be united by the fear that no one is safe if a tea party-backed Republican can win the Senate seat the late Ted Kennedy held for nearly 50 years.

I even read that except for 1 term that seat had been Democratic since 1926.

We all pretty much knew for sure we were going to lose Massachusetts,” one person in attendance told POLITICO on Wednesday. “And yet, last night and this morning, we had absolutely no message guidance from the White House, [the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] or [the Democratic National Committee]. There was no leadership. … So all of the members today are just opining about what they think it means and whether we should move forward on health care.”

The unsinkable Titanic has hit the Massachusetts Iceberg.

But House Democrats, already terrified by the wholesale defection of independents to the GOP in Massachusetts, were infuriated when a New York Times article, apparently citing an administration source, suggested Speaker Nancy Pelosi could pass an unamended version of the Senate’s health reform bill.

“The sense was that the Obama folks were trying to say it was inevitable when it wasn’t,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, a supporter of the public option who has clashed with the White House repeatedly about the issue.

“It wasn’t that they were bullying us, but it reinforced the idea that they were a little tone-deaf to what the reality inside the House and Senate really were,” Weiner added.

And they and The Congress have been tone deaf for over 6 months about the warning of the Iceberg coming.

And some still are:

Howard Fineman, the increasingly loopy editor of the increasingly doomed Newsweek, took it a step further. The truck wasn’t just any old prop, but a very particular kind. “In some places, there are codes, there are images,” he told MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. “You know, there are pickup trucks; you could say there was a racial aspect to it one way or another.”(IBD)

So Senator-Elect Brown’s old pickup is a code word for Racism??

Someone want to get Mr. Fineman a white coat with the sleeves on backwards please…

But many Democrats aren’t the only ones who have fallen out of love with The Messiah.

As Paul Krugman, the New York Times’ “Conscience of a Liberal,” put it: “He Wasn’t The One We’ve Been Waiting For.” Not the once-delirious Europeans, either. As the headline in Der Spiegel put it: “The World Bids Farewell To Obama.”

When it comes to great headlines, no publication beats the (UK) Daily Mail. Wednesday morning’s edition featured a classic which dovetailed the first anniversary of Obama’s inauguration with the election of Scott Brown.  It read:  “Happy Birthday, Mr. President — here’s a bloody nose!🙂

Financial Times Deutschland: “For everyone else in the world, this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with. Obama will be staying home after all.”

Center-left daily Süddeutsche Zeitung writes on Thursday:

“Obama made a serious misjudgement. Right at the beginning of his first year in office, he saved the banks, rescued the automobile industry from collapse and passed a huge economic stimulus package. He had hoped that these enormous deeds would give him the space to address those issues which are dearest to him: health care reform, climate change and investment in education.”

“Those issues, however, are clearly not priorities for people in the US at the moment. Scott Brown campaigned on two promises, both of which apparently struck a nerve with the electorate. He wants to block health care reform and he wants to find ways to reduce the enormous budget deficit. It is here where the roots of dissatisfaction with Obama are to be found. His reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country’s future.”

Gerald Scarfe, a major political cartoonist for the Times of London, began — at Obama’s inauguration — depicting the new President as a promising Superman.  By the middle of last year, these images had devolved into a Superman whose biceps and pecks had disintegrated and whose cape hung limply from shriveled shoulders.  In the August addition to his series, Scarfe shows Super Obama having a face first collision into a brick wall labeled “Health Care.”

Darn that Massachusetts Kryptonite!!

Or perhaps Super Obama, rather than being faster than a locomotive, could be drawn being mowed down by a runaway train called The Tea Party Express.🙂

Sarkozy was the first European leader to turn on President Obama in 2009, describing him in an interview as “naïve.”  He had good reason to feel that way. Early in his Presidency, Obama had sent a letter to the French President going on about how well he envisioned them working together.  Alas, the letter was sent to the former French President, Jacques Chirac — not Sarkozy. The news of Obama’s diplomatic faux pax was widely reported in Europe, but not by the hypnotized American media.  This incident was followed by a bungled dinner invitation in which both Sarkozy and Obama perceived themselves as snubbed by the other.  Needless to say, the French media are no longer dazzled by the American President and they think even less of Michelle Obama’s fashion sense. (Human events)

But here’s the Best One:

But Nile Gardiner of the Telegraph will surely have to gate crash his way into the White House from now on after penning his opus: “10 Reasons why George W. Bush was a smarter world leader than Barack Obama.”  Since David Letterman is unlikely to read this top ten list, we’ve printed them here for your convenience:

(1) Bush never apologized for his country;

(2) Bush identified and confronted evil;

(3) Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda;

(4)  Bush defended national sovereignty;

(5) Bush believed in the Special Relationship (with Britain);

(6) Bush cultivated key allies;

(7) Bush understood the importance of missile defense;

(8) Bush believed in fighting a global war;

(9)  Bush did not compromise U.S. security: and

(10)  Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy.

Ouch! And he was so “European”. 🙂

Just shows to go you, a house of cards, built on shifting sand cannot last. A small, northeast, gust of wind has blown it all to smithereens.🙂