Pathetic: Team Obama Makes Osama Killing A Campaign Issue, Questions Romney

Well, really, what else does Team Obama have to hang their hat on?

(USA Today) A year after authorizing the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, President Obama and his election team are making it an election issue.

The Obama election team has a new ad in which former president Bill Clinton talks about the risks Obama took in ordering the mission that took place on May 2 of last year.

The ad also asks: “What path would Mitt Romney have taken?”

Disgraceful. Speculating that Romney would not have ordered the raid. Not sure how this will play with Liberals, since many were aghast over this targeted assassination without due process. I doubt Independents and Moderates will approve of this over the top ad, as well. Over at The Hill, Obama is being ripped for this. Best comment

WOW….(an UNNAMED source) from the Obama campaign speculates on what Mitt Romney would do……if that’s not a reach to make news I don’t know what is. Why not attach a name to the article?
How about Obama running on his record?  Nah, too dangerous right?

Read: Pathetic: Team Obama Makes Osama Killing A Campaign Issue, Questions Romney »

NJ Devils Defeat Panthers In Double OT

Devils head coach Pete DeBoer said “This was exhausting and I didn’t even play.” It was exhausting for Devils fans, too, who’ve been waiting for a playoff series win for quite some time, and after missing the playoffs last year. But

Let the brawling and cheap shots begin.

The Flyers are next for the resilient Devils and there is barely enough time for goalie Martin Brodeur and his weary teammates to rest.

After overcoming the Florida Panthers, 3-2, when rookie center Adam Henrique scored at 3:47 of the second overtime in Game 7 of their Eastern Conference quarterfinal series Thursday night at the BankAtlantic Center, the Devils advanced to the semifinals and will play Game 1 in Philadelphia on Sunday at 3 p.m.

“This feels pretty good. For a day. Then we have to face the Flyers,” Brodeur said.

This should be a heck of a series, as well.

“I think I blacked out when I heard the thud at the back of the net,” Henrique said. “An NHL Game 7 winner. That’s the game you always play with mini-sticks at home in the hallway or living room.”

Good for him, netting his 2nd goal of the game as the series winner. And good for Stephen Gionta and the other 4th liners, who really stepped it up in the Playoffs, scoring several goals and being an energy line, which is what teams want during the “second season.”

The Rangers get the Capitals. St. Louis vs. Los Angeles. Phoenix vs. Nashville. Full schedule here.

Read: NJ Devils Defeat Panthers In Double OT »

Is There Really A Need To Panic Over a .29C Rise In World Temperatures?

Is there any need to implement massive Central Government regulations that include large transfers of money from the private sector to the government sector along with numerous lifestyle limiting burdens?

(UK Daily Mail) World temperatures have remained almost stagnant in the last two decades, new figures have revealed.

Temperatures across the globe rose by around a third of a degree last year from the average of 14 degrees Celsius recorded between 1961 and 1990.

In some years, temperatures rose by just 0.29 degrees C while in others they rose by .53 degrees.

Most of that warming occurred in the 1990’s, with a rise of about .2C, ending with the El Nino year of 1998. Since then, barely any rise, and, in many places, a dip. The UN IPCC “best” scenario, using their vaunted computer models, was for around .46C over the period of 1990-2012 (via Clive Best). Furthermore, from 1961-1980, the Earth was in a cooling period (the overall cooling period started in the 1940’s), meaning the average temperature was deflated to start with during the current warm period, which was preceded by a long term cool period, and a period that was warmer than today, then a cool period, and a warmer than today period.

Are we really supposed to panic over .29C over 22 years?

The findings come as consumers feel the full force of a raft of environment policies introduced by the coalition and the previous Labour government in the name of climate change.

By 2030, ‘green’ policy burdens could cost families an extra £267 a year and have already raised current energy bills by £78 annually.

This is the kind of idiotic policy that saw the Queensland Labor Party lose so many seats in this years election that they aren’t even considered a Party within the government. But, then, the point has never been to “stop anthropogenic global warming”, it’s always been to increase the power of the government over the private sector and shift more and more money into the government coffers.

HadCrut and NASA temps are “significantly lower than IPCC climate model predictions.” This is why the Warmists have switched to blaming every weather event on “climate change”, ie, Other People living a modern life, after they told us that “weather is not climate.” It’s also why they are pushing “biodiversity” and “sustainability”. Creating fantasies that snow can only be caused by warm weather. That no matter what happens, it is the fault of climate change. They especially enjoy discussing these notions in exotic vacation spots around the world reached by fossil fueled flights on the taxpayer quarter.

Read: Is There Really A Need To Panic Over a .29C Rise In World Temperatures? »

Here We Go: Ray LaHood Calls For A Federal Ban On Cell Phone Use While Driving

LaHood has been flirting with the notion of banning wireless phone usage for a few years, running it up the flag pole, pushing cities and states to ban the usage, but, many people stated that this was simply Ray thinking out loud, a little wishful thinking, nothing would happen. But, now

(MSNBC) U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood called on Thursday for a federal law to ban talking on a cell phone or texting while driving any type of vehicle on any road in the country.

Tough federal legislation is the only way to deal with what he called a “national epidemic,” he said at a distracted-driving summit in San Antonio, Texas, that drew doctors, advocates and government officials.

LaHood said it is important for the police to have “the opportunity to write tickets when people are foolishly thinking they can drive safely or use a cell phone and text and drive.”

LaHood has previously criticized behind-the-wheel use of cell phones and other devices, but calling for a federal law prohibiting the practice takes his effort to a new level.

Just another in a long line of big nanny state liberals. However, the chance of there being legislation crafted and voted on in Congress is effectively nill. Nor would Obama attempt an executive order. Whether some Congress Critters, particularly Democrats, call for legislation, or at least hearings, well, that I could see happening. And perhaps a law which creates a “spreading awareness” campaign that costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 3,000 fatal traffic accidents nationwide last year were the result of distracted driving. Using a cell phone while driving delays reaction time the same amount as having a blood alcohol concentration of .08, the legal limit, the highway agency said.

On the other hand, LaHood has a good point. Driving while using electronic devices is pretty darned distracting

The nine most common distractions observed in conjunction with a risky driving maneuver were (for 2010):

  • Object in Hand/44.5%
  • Talking on a Handheld Mobile Phone/13.4%
  • Beverage/12.7%
  • Food /10.1%
  • Smoking/9.9%
  • Operating a Handheld Device/9.1%
  • Talking/Listening Mobile Phone – Hands Free/5.2%
  • Manifest, Map or Navigation/1.0%
  • Grooming/Personal Hygiene/0.6%

Basically, driving a car is risky behavior. Taking your eyes off the road for just two seconds doubles your chance of being involved in an accident. Missing from the list above is talking to passengers and car stereos.

Whether it’s turning around to talk to your kids or looking at the person sitting in your passenger seat, the NHTSA estimates that talking to passengers was the leading distraction in 7,000 crashes last year. Although the department’s research stated that passengers typically pose only a “cognitive” distraction, it’s still one of the most common causes of distracted driving.

We should have a federal law banning passengers. We should ban beverages and food, because they are, for all intense purposes, as bad as talking on a phone. And MP3 players should be banned. I know I’ve been distracted by them while searching for a song. I bet you have, too.

Exactly what would a law do? There are already existing laws that make distracted driving illegal. At the State level. Driving while impaired laws are state laws, not federal laws (except on federal property. A federal law covers that). If a State or city wants to pass laws, that’s within their right. The last thing we need is more federal regulation, though, I wonder if the Feds would sue and state or municipality that passes restrictions that are tougher than federal law, like with the Arizona and other states’ immigration laws.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: Here We Go: Ray LaHood Calls For A Federal Ban On Cell Phone Use While Driving »

Queen Nancy Says GOP Student Loans Plan Is An “Assualt On Women”

One of the problems with beating a meme to death is that people may very well tune out the message, and, even worse for those trotting out state memes, it could make people wonder what the hell that person has to offer. Here’s Excitable Nancy Pelosi

(ABC News) House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi railed against Republican efforts to offset the one-year extension of the 3.4 percent student loan rate by taking money out of a fund she believes is imperative to the “survival to women.”

Pelosi told reporters that she is whipping her caucus to oppose the GOP’s proposal.

“We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative while making those very same people pay for it,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said today during her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill. “In order to pay for it, [House Republicans] are going to make an assault on women’s health, make another assault on women’s health, continue our assault on women’s health and pay for this with prevention initiatives that are in effect right now for childhood immunization; for screening for breast cancer, for cervical cancer; and for initiatives to reduce birth defects – a large part of what the Center for Disease Control does in terms of prevention.”

I hear a screeching in my ears, how about you? Anyhow, ABC links to another ABC article which highlights that Boehner wants to do away with an HHS slush fund, one that Democrats already agreed to cut back in February. The Speaker’s blog has more. But, my goodness, Nancy just can’t help herself. She has her claws wrapped around this stale talking point, but, what is the Democrat plan? Why, to go after small businesses with tax law changes that would increase their costs.

On a side note, if the student loans issue is so damned important, as Obama has been preaching over the last week, why is Harry Reid waiting till May 8th for a vote?

Read: Queen Nancy Says GOP Student Loans Plan Is An “Assualt On Women” »

If All You See…

…is a dog that is playing with a tennis ball made from unsustainable synthetic rubber, you might just be a Warmist

I should make Barack Obama’s campaign site, I Eat Dogs, the blog of the day, but, let’s make it Gay Patriot.

Read: If All You See… »

The Anatomy Of Climate Change (Hoax) Denialism

One of the issues the Warmists have been worried about as of late is why, exactly, people aren’t buying into their mule fritter talking points. As always, one thing I’ll point out is the pure hypocrisy of Warmists, who want everyone else to suffer, but, refuse to practice what they preach. They always have some excuse handy to point out why they won’t live the “carbon neutral” lifestyle, but, hey, “that guy over there should be forced to comply.” Or, they’ll push the tired “we should all work together, won’t you help out?” No. Anyhow, Grist crossposts this article by Christie Aschwanden from The Last Word On Nothing

The anatomy of denial: Why truth doesn’t always win

I recently attended the Science Writing in the Age of Denial conference at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The event explored the phenomenon of denial and what it means for science writers. How can journalists effectively convey science when its uncomfortable truths face organized resistance?

Whoa, whoa, whoa: you live in Grand Mesa, Colorado, Christie: why are you taking unnecessary fossil fueled trips?

I walked away from the event feeling both energized and frustrated. Denialism is easy to spot, and conference speakers like Sean B. Carroll and Naomi Oreskes were especially adept at characterizing and documenting it. During his keynote talk, Carroll outlined a “denialism manual in six steps,” which he adapted from a history of chiropractors and vaccination published in 2000.

Step 1: Doubt the science.
Step 2: Question scientists’ motives and interests.
Step 3: Magnify legitimate, normal disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities.
Step 4: Exaggerate potential harms (scare the hell out of people).
Step 5: Appeal to personal freedom (I’m an American and no government official can tell me what vaccinations I need).
Step 6: Show that accepting the science would represent a repudiation of a key philosophy.

Those steps look pretty darned close to what the Warmist manual states

Step 1: State that the debate is over.
Step 2: Question the motives and interests of anyone who doesn’t agree 100%, attack them personally.
Step 3: Minimize legitimate, normal disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies as authorities.
Step 4: Exaggerate potential harms from trace amounts of a gas necessary for life on Earth (scare the hell out of people).
Step 5: Appeal to Government to Do Something to That Guy while heading to work in gas guzzling vehicle.
Step 6: Agitate and spread awareness, because that’s all that is needed to solve the “climate crisis”. And someone else’s money.

Warmists really don’t have science to stand on, all they have are prophecies. And, until they lead by example, more and more people will tune out their silly message.

Read: The Anatomy Of Climate Change (Hoax) Denialism »

Good News: TSA Defends Enhanced Pat Down Of Terrified 4 Year Old

After all the issues the other year with the TSA, it’s amazing that these kinds of incidents continue to happen

(AP) — The grandmother of a 4-year-old girl who became hysterical during a security screening at a Kansas airport said Wednesday that the child was forced to undergo a pat-down after hugging her, with security agents yelling and calling the crying girl an uncooperative suspect.

The incident has been garnering increasing media and online attention since the child’s mother, Michelle Brademeyer of Montana, detailed the ordeal in a public Facebook post last week. The Transportation Security Administration is defending its agents, despite new procedures aimed at reducing pat-downs of children.

The child’s grandmother, Lori Croft, told The Associated Press that Brademeyer and her daughter, Isabella, initially passed through security at the Wichita airport without incident. The girl then ran over to briefly hug Croft, who was awaiting a pat-down after tripping the alarm, and that’s when TSA agents insisted the girl undergo a physical pat-down.

The child was screaming and terrified, having no clue what was occurring. Yet, the TSA continued on, and was abusive towards the parents and grandmother, telling them that the TSA would shut down the airport unless they grabbed the child. The parents were told they couldn’t comfort the child initially, up to the point that this hysterical child was allowed to be patted down while in the arms of her mother.

Here’s where the TSA goes further off the rails

The TSA released a statement Tuesday saying it explained to the family why additional security procedures were necessary and that agents didn’t suspect or suggest the child was carrying a firearm.

“TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child,” the agency said.

So, the agents didn’t suspect the child was carrying a firearm? So, why completely freak out a 4 year old? The TSA’s Blogger Bob explains

TSA has long had a security procedure where if somebody has contact with a person who is undergoing additional screening, they must also undergo additional screening. Why you might ask? You’ve probably heard the old saying that the hand can be faster than eye? Well… that’s the reasoning behind this procedure. There’s always the chance that a prohibited item could be traded off during contact. I’m sure you’ve watched the scene play out in more than one movie where two people collide or shake hands and an item is traded off? Same thing…

So, what did they think a 4 year old was involved in? Sounds more like the TSA acting like tin-pot dictators.

From the comments

  • You continuously confuse the statement “our policy mandates it” with the statement that “it was necessary.” Those of us who have more than two working brain cells can see that this was not necessary in any sense.
  • Perhaps making the video available to corroborate your story is in order.
  • Conspicuously absent in your explanation, Bob, is how your officers treated the child, screaming at her and refusing to allow her mother to comfort her. Is that part of your standard procedure? Because if it is, there’s absolutely no way I will ever fly with my preschool aged daughter.

Lest you think this is the only TSA issue of late, we also have the TSA causing a family to miss a flight because the TSA singled out a 7 year old. Who has cerebral palsy. And crutches and walking braces. Who is developmentally challenged.

More: via The Classic Conservative, we get our first glimpse of this brazen terrorist wannabe

Don’t be fooled by that darling little princess outfit, she’s probably hiding several My Little Pony’s filled with Semtex in her dress and a garote in her headband.

Read: Good News: TSA Defends Enhanced Pat Down Of Terrified 4 Year Old »

E.J. Dionne: Romney’s Economic Plans Are Radical Because They Don’t Include Goverment

In Liberal World, the only entity that can truly make the economy grow is The Government

Romney’s principled, radical view for America

It turns out that there is at least one question on which Mitt Romney is not a flip-flopper: He has a utopian view of what an unfettered, lightly taxed market economy can achieve.

He would never put it this way, of course, but his approach looks forward by looking backward to the late 19th century, when government let market forces rip and a conservative Supreme Court swept aside as unconstitutional almost every effort to write rules for the economic game. This magical capitalism is the centerpiece of Romney’s campaign, and it may prove to be his undoing.

The 1900’s weren’t a perfect century economy wise: there were 4 big panics. But, the period from 1865 to 1900 are referred to as the “Gilded Age” in which “Many Americans came to idealize these businessmen who amassed vast financial empires.” And “The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history.” And “From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for real GDP and 4.5% for real GDP per capita, despite the panic of 1873.” Sounds like a pretty good age, eh? People

Here’s Romney’s problem. His best strategy is to cast President Obama as a failure because the economy has not come all the way back from the implosion of 2008. The most effective passages in his well-reviewed speech after his primary victories Tuesday were about the shortcomings of the status quo.

“Is it easier to make ends meet?” Romney asked. “Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more at your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Are you paying less at the pump?”

And E.J. blows right by those two paragraphs, not offering any sort of defense of Obama/Democrat policies, especially in light of saying that Romney’s problem is to cast (NMP) Obama as an economic failure. Not quite sure how that is a problem, Obama is a miserable failure. And he eats dogs.

But Romney, unlike Clinton, is not offering a program through which government would take specific steps to solve the problems he catalogues. Instead, he is calling on voters to share his faith that our difficulties would go away if the state simply got out of the way, allowed the market do its thing and counted on the success of the successful to lift up everyone else.

And there you go: Romney is radical for not pushing a government driven economy. Perhaps Romney has simply witnessed the malfeasance, recklessness, and incompetence of Central Government planning within the economy. The waste of trillions of dollars on failed projects which, furthermore, added enormous amounts of borrowed money to the debt and deficit. Oh, and saddled the US with huge unfunded mandates.

Romney is right in saying he has “a very different vision” from Obama’s, and this is where the magic comes in. He envisions “an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans. And because there are so many enterprises that are succeeding, the competition for hardworking, educated, skilled employees is intense, so wages and salaries rise.”

Damn him, damn him to Hell! What the heck does Romney think he’s pushing with this silly freedom crap? Doesn’t he know that Los Federales know best? I just can’t vote for anyone who lives so far in the past and believes in freedom. Chump.

Just like that, all would be well — as if we never needed the trust-busting of the Progressive Era, the social legislation of the New Deal, the health programs of the Great Society and the coordinated action of the world’s governments in 2008 and 2009 to keep the Great Recession from becoming something far worse.

And all those mentioned led to the modern mega-Central Government, in which too much government interference leads to the issue never being fixed. Things have to bottom out. Right now, most of the world is simply puttering along. Perhaps sputtering would be better. Perhaps E.J. could opine on Obama’s plan, which seems to revolve around raising taxes, spending more taxpayer money on projects that are bound to fail, and…..well, that’s it.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.

Read: E.J. Dionne: Romney’s Economic Plans Are Radical Because They Don’t Include Goverment »

Obama Vows To Make Climate Change (Hoax) A 2012 Campaign Issue

In all fairness, Obama may be a terrible and completely incompetent president, but the guy does know how to campaign, so, I think we can assume that he’s simply throwing a bone to his unhinged lefty base

(The Hill) President Obama is vowing to make the case for action on global warming during the 2012 campaign.

“I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way,” Obama told Rolling Stone magazine in a newly published interview.

Sorry, Warmists, Obama’s not that stupid. He’s paying lip service and attempting to get you excited, but, it won’t happen. He knows that this is a loser issue. All he needs do is look at what happened to the Queensland Labor Party…well, they aren’t really a recognized party anymore, having lost so many seats. And the last thing Obama wants is even more Democrats avoiding him during this election cycle. It’s not even a good issue to deflect from his atrocious record.

Besides, I don’t think his political base really gives a damn about the environment, as the First Street Journal points out.

clown

Read: Obama Vows To Make Climate Change (Hoax) A 2012 Campaign Issue »

Pirate's Cove