Is There Nothing That Obama Can't Do?

As Monti Burns would say EXCELLENT!!!!

The shape of the graph reminds me of yesterday's plot of debt and GDP.

It dont look good Mr Benny!

O, CBC, I hold my head in my hands. Why do you have to be that way? Always the recalcitrant teenager - pushing the limits, thinking left is kewl, right is evil, and in the end, still stultifyingly boring.

No he can't!

The last words of that CBC link:

"An often humourous, but penetrating look at the challenges of climate change in a country that's addicted to cheap fuel and the jobs that come with it,..."

"...And the jobs that come with it..."

How immensely deranged and devoid of all logic one has to be in CBC land or a subscriber for that matter.

The CBC HAS TO GO!!! ARE YOU LISTENING PM HARPER? YOU BETTER DO SOMETHING WITH THAT 1.5 B$'S OF WASTED TAX DOLLARS ONCE YOU GET YOUR UPCOMING MAJORITY...AND I DON'T CARE IF QUEBEC ADORES IT'S FRENCH VERSION "RADIO-CANADA"...LET DUCEPPE AND THE SEPS TRY TO PUSH IT WITH "CANADA" IN IT'S NAME...IF QUEBECERS CAN'T SEE THE IRONY; LET THEM BUCK AGAIN...WE CAN STILL FORM A MAJORITY WITHOUT MUCH QUEBEC PARTICIPATION AGAIN.

Meanwhile back at the outhouse the big O brings back slavery with a bang!

The master is dead! Long live your new master!

Here's how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president's fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a "suspected enemy combatant" by the president or his designated minions is no longer a "person." They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever -- save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

link:http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1887-dred-scott-redux-obama-and-the-supremes-stand-up-for-slavery.html

N1 shaken.

What I can't figure out is why PMSH is an "embarrassment" to Canada in the eyes of the “left” when he has clearly stated that he will blindly follow “The One”. Clearly PMSH should be heralded by the CBC for his enlightened left of center stance.

Seriously though, this is what I was saying about the “smarts” of PMSH’s stance on AGW. Economically his hands are force anyways, so becoming a “believer” is a nifty move. By effectively saying “yada yada AGW yada yada” he has taken away the only issue the opposition had any traction on. Furthermore, what I called “Harpers Gambit” last month was the icing on the cake. PMSH rolled the dice gambling on BO’s weakness, or should I say lack of leadership. PMSH absolved himself of any responsibility by passing the buck to BO, knowing BO didn’t have the clout, capital, or no-how to make any progress on the AGW file.

The left will try to spin it otherwise, but in the end, the failure in Copenhagen and possibly domestically on the AGW file will lay at BO’s feet, while PMSH conservatively matriculates the ball down the field.

Good thing he's a B+ president or that rating would be really bad.

Homez nails it !!

As I was driving across town on Sunday I caught a snip of Rex's show on CBC radio. Some dear lady was expressing her opinion that the big winner at Copenhagen was Obama. I was never so glad the streets of Edmonton are deeply furrowed with snow ere I would have had an accident. I my eyes were so full of tears from laughter I couldn't see where I was going. For safety sake I changed channels rather quickly.

Reading that CBC clip, I finally figured out who the 7% of Canadians are that pay attention to that medium - the same 7% representing the popular support for the Green Party. It all makes sense now. Lizzie's: bad manners, zealotry, self righteousness, superficial knowledge in all things scientific or technical, and Red to the core. That's Lizzie and that's the CBC. CBC personified.

I think the sooner Mr. Harper takes a tough stance against Quebec and puts them in their place the sooner he will see a majority. If there is one issue where the east and the West see eye to eye it is Quebec. Everyone it seems is tired of their BS, give them less if you want more, more votes that is. Tell the fickle frogs to go jump in the pond and take their arts funding with them.

Making the Death Panels Permanent

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/22/making-the-death-panels-permanent/

"There are always, when some of us on the right blow up an issue like Harry Reid’s rules changes, some people who say we’re overreacting.

I have to say I think they miss the point.

First, I do agree with Gabriel Malor that “a quick glance at the Library of Congress website and Google shows that language similar to that used here to except these provisions from the Standing Rules has been used dozens of times in the past thirty years in both the Senate and the House, including in the 109th Congress when Republicans controlled both chambers.”

Second, I do agree the GOP has done thing, including with Medicare Part D.

But, in most all of the cases, though not all including Medicare Part D, the Senate first went through a procedural vote requiring a two-thirds vote in recognition that there would be a change of Senate Rules.

In several of the cases, including Medicare Part D, when that two-thirds vote did not first happen, the 51 person vote went forward without an objection being raised by the Democrats on that point.

Here is where I think the people saying we’re overreacting are totally missing the point.

In the case at hand, an objection was raised and very clearly the rules were being changed. The Senate President, however, ruled that the rules were not being changed, just procedure, despite the clear wording of the change being a rules change.

This is, in fact, done in contravention to Senate procedure.

But here is what everyone saying this is no big deal is missing: to my knowledge and the knowledge of those who I have consulted with on this issue, there has never been any legislation passed by the Congress with a prohibition on future Senates considering changes to previously enacted laws or regulations.

We can argue over whether or not this would be upheld, but given the refusal of the Senate GOP Leadership to fight now, we can wonder if they would fight on this in the future.

Likewise, what exactly is Harry Reid trying to prevent future Senates from repealing? Bureaucratic regulations enacted by the Death Panels. So, for example, though the Death Panels are prohibited by statute from passing “rationing” regulations, under the definitions, the panels can pass regulations setting priorities for treatment. So, they can say a 40 year old must get treatment for the same condition suffered by a 70 year old before the 70 year old can get treatment, thereby letting the 70 year old whither and die waiting for their turn.

And Harry Reid intends for the Senate, in perpetuity, to be prohibited from every changing that regulation without a super-majority of the Senate agreeing to ignore that prohibition.

Lastly, why in God’s name would the Senate Majority Leader want to make the Death Panel regulations the only thing in the Obamacare legislation that is not subject to amendment, repeal, or change by the United States Senate?!"

Obamacare has a much darker side...

Harry Reid the Darth Vader of Obamacare, won't be saving the planet or you either...

Well to Hell with that and the horse it rode into town on.

Christmas Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”

I thought last week's -19 rating was an outlier ... a statistical blip. Happily, I was wrong.

Phantom, looks like we need to pour another glass of Schadenfreude.

CNN reporting a 6% rise this morning.

Good thing you keep posting what ever CBC is up to, otherwise I would never know! Time to scrap this worthless corporation.

I heard the One has hired Michael Mann to do a statiscal analysis on his poll numbers.

Country Mamma at December 22, 2009 10:59 AM

Moan and groan all you wish....The USSC is right on the money. The Geneva Accords, that you hold so dearly, concur with the USSC.
Illegal combatants, those found armed and without uniform ( or those wearing another forces uniform---impersonating) on a battlefield are outside the law and subject to immediate summary execution.

Harry Reid leaves the legistlation/regulation, he pushes in his way, subject to total nullification.
Obama faces impeachment and treason if he endorses it. Game set match. Ready aim fire.

boballab @ 3.30
Hey it's Christmas, here you are!

http://babalublog.com/2009/12/obama-appoints-new-czar/

News has just been released that President Barack Obama has appointed the embattled and disgraced climate scientologist, Michael Mann, as the latest addition to his administration's long list of Czars.

After the briefing, White House personnel passed out the first product of Presidential Daily Tracking Poll Czar, Michael Mann.

... a presidential job approval graph with a hockey stick attached, showing "the one's" recent uptick from Michael Mann...

sasquatch - I know that you have expertise in the area. What does this all mean in a practical sense? The current ROE seem a bit weird to a peripheral observer like me, without any real knowledge of other than what I read in the papers.

Obama must be operating in a vacuum. I mean a featherweight like Obama couldn't fall that fast in a normal atmosphere!

CBC's not even trying to pretend anymore. Oh well.

Give me MORE LIZZY MAY!

Monty Python is no more, and I need a fix!!!

I'm struck by the choice of terminology by MSM, lead by the CBC. Just like how “climate change” and “global warming” are used interchangeably for them, depending on what suits their “report” - the former for snow storms that have hit much of western Europe, most seeing no snow at all in an average season; the latter when it’s 45C heat in Australia with raging brush fires - so to has been the case with the Copenhagen framework agreement.

When Obama is cited in their reports, it’s invariably to praise him for salvaging something at the last minute from a conference that otherwise, they say, would have produced nothing. When wanting to criticize the agreement, they’ll cite “the conference” as a whole for having failed, not Obama himself. It’s quite striking in all the reports I’ve seen.

Conversely, paradoxically and hypocritically, they’ll personalize critical angles of the agreement with plenty of direct references to Harper by name, criticizing him for following “the Americans” (not Obama, you notice) instead of having Canada taking the lead, as they say.

First he’s criticized for not being more like Obama. Now he’s being criticized for supporting an agreement that the U.S. president himself is endorsing.

Erik Larsen
[....sasquatch - I know that you have expertise in the area. What does this all mean in a practical sense? The current ROE seem a bit weird to a peripheral observer like me, without any real knowledge of other than what I read in the papers.]

Indeed. The guys operating in Bosnia had some weird ROE.

Typically, especially, UN ROE depart from the Geneva Accords.....it is unclear who sets the ROE---likely some Pauchari/type UN/EU beaurocrat---IMNSHO.

eg:
You are advancing down a street with a local interpreter. A sniper shoots and kills the interpreter from a building on your front.
If you return fire, you have committed a war crime. You have not positively identified the shooter and have not established whether "innocent" civilians are exposed to your fire.
ROE----withdraw (run away)
A person, who appears to be a civilian is running towards you with an unpined grenade.
If you shoot him....you have committed murder...because he has not thrown the grenade.
If you wait until he has thrown the grenade and then shoot him..you have committed murder....the grenade is the threat and he is now unarmed.
ROE-----withdraw (run away)

That's not just weird that is insane.

The reality with such ROE----before returning fire---first shoot the UN observer.

I don't make the rules---I just play the game.

Moral---don't be a UN observer.

PS----

MORE COWBELL.......

Thanks sasquatch. Yikes

He is crash and burn. Perhaps it's just that the Danes don't like him, but twice now, he has flown over to Copenhagen to bring peace to the world and be rejected. In the second instance, the BASIC countries didn't even want to meet him - and they got from him everything they wanted.

I think The Savior of The World is laughed at by other heads of state and sundry international politicians; rather like Gordon Brown.

He's light years ahead of you Republicans. He's so far ahead that you don't even understand what he's doing.