It turns out there is a global warming consensus, but it’s not the one Al Gore was hoping for.
This is not the kind of news Al Gore likes to read as his personal chef is preparing his eggs benedict. No, not at all. Turns out there is a global warming consensus, but it’s not the one Gore was hoping for.
Al Gore personally leads the fight against global warming by using three 30-inch HD monitors instead of four
CNS News offers up the details:
Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries.
Respondents were asked: “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?” They were given the options of anwering: not at all serious, not very serious, somewhat serious or very serious.
Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat.
As highly-trained experts in advanced mathematics, we have been able to determine that that means 58% don’t think it’s a serious threat.
In the United States, 53 percent of those surveyed think global warming is a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gore shouldn’t celebrate those numbers, though, because that’s down from 63% in 2008.
Only 10% of the residents of Somaliland think global warming is a somewhat serious or very serious threat.
Greece is is the nation most afraid of global warming. Perhaps that nation’s economic woes can be attributed to the fact that 87% of Greeks spent all their money on Gore’s snakeoil.
The guy who’s broken every campaign pledge he ever made is now calling Donald Trump a “carnival barker.”
The guy who’s broken every campaign pledge he ever made is now calling Donald Trump a “carnival barker.”
Here’s what Obama said about his would-be opponent in Wednesday’s birth certificate press conference:
I’ve provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Yes, I was in fact born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Over the past 2 1/2 years I have watched with puzzlement this controversy. Normally I wouldn’t comment on this. But the prominent news story was about my birth certificate, not the budget. I want to make a larger point. We have enormous issues we are facing. Which will generate huge and fierce debates. We are not going to be able to come together in a bipartisan fashion if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers. I have every confidence that the US will come out on top.
We assume that when President Obama called Donald Trump a carnival barker, he doesn’t actually think Trump stands on the midway and lures suckers in to play rigged games of chance.
Based on Obama’s performance as President, we’re not sure if it’s supposed to be an insult or a compliment.
PhotoShop and Illustrator expert, shows us incontrovertible evidence that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate shows signs of being a fake.
Before he became a small time blogger, BigFurHat from iOwnTheWorld.com was a big time graphic designer. We know this because he told us so (OK, that and we’ve seen his portfolio.)
Here’s what he says about the newly-released Obama birth certificate:
“I can emphatically tell you that this document is not merely a scan of a document that has been uploaded to the internet. This is a document that has been either put together or taken apart prior to the upload, and even Charles Johnson would have to admit that.”
When BigFurHat, a self-acknowledged PhotoShop and Illustrator expert, shows us incontrovertible evidence that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate shows signs of being created with computer programs that didn’t exist in 1961, we have to listen.
Well, we try to listen, but BigFurHat’s voice is kind of drowned out by the sound of our inner voices screaming, “Dan Rather!”
We’d try to explain this stuff, but we wouldn’t have a clue what we were talking about. And we try to save that for our political commentary.
Watch this video. And read BigFurHat’s analysis over at iOwnTheWorld.com.
Before our liberal readers start saying, “Yeah, where’d you get that? Fox News?” we should point out that it comes from the Harvard Crimson.
We’re always told by our liberal friends that Barack Obama is brilliant and as as proof of that brilliance they pull out the fact that he was president of the Harvard Law Review.
Uh-oh. Now a new article calls that evidence into question.
Barack Obama became President o the Harvard Law Review thanks to affirmative action. He became an effeminate male model all on his own.
Before our liberal readers start saying, “Yeah, where’d you get that? Fox News?” we should point out that it comes from the Harvard Crimson. And we assume we can trust the liberal Harvard Crimson to report accurately on the liberal Harvard Law School.
Here’s how the Crimson describes the circumstances that may have lead to Barack Obama’s rise to prominence:
In 1981, all 80-some editors except one were white, and it would be another decade before the Review elected its first black president, Sen. Barack H. Obama, (D-Ill.) Fewer than a dozen of the editors on the Review were women, although Susan R. Estrich, the law professor and Democratic political operative, served as the Review’s president in 1977.
It was then that the saga of the Law Review’s affirmative action program began, when the editors adopted a race- and gender-conscious policy by a 45 to 39 vote, to the vehement opposition of some faculty members.
Several months of intense debate and negotiations ensued between the Review and the faculty, at the end of which the Review began for the first time considering factors other than merit in choosing its members.
Young Barack Obama seems to have majored in posing for photos
Prior to 1981, law students could join the Review either by being among the top five students in their first-year sections—each class used to be divided into four sections—or through a combination of their grades and their scores on an annual writing competition, a process designed to preserve absolute objectivity.
But the 1981 editors felt it necessary for their admission policy to take into account the underrepresentation of minorities and women.
Under their modified plan, the top four students in each first-year section would still be elected to the Review, but the fifth spot would be reserved for the top-scoring minority student among the top 25, and if no such minority student existed, the fifth spot would go to the woman with the highest grades.
Two days after the adoption of this policy, three editors—including one woman—resigned in protest.
In response, the Review’s leadership convened to reconsider their plan, opting for a non-quota system that would merely take race and gender into consideration. But despite the modification, the Review continued to encounter opposition from students, alumni, and most importantly, from the faculty.
The first Affirmative Action President. We’ll leave it up to you to figure out if we’re talking about the Harvard Law Review or the United States of America.
Read the whole article at the link immediately below.
Ed Schultz achieved the almost unachievable on Friday, April 22. On that night he lost a remarkable 61% of Rachel Maddow’s lead-in audience.
Ed Schultz achieved the almost unachievable on Friday, April 22. On that night he lost a remarkable 61% of Rachel Maddow’s lead-in audience. And it’s not like her ratings were anything to brag about.
Ed Schultz: High hopes, low ratings
As you can see in the following chart, MSNBC was rolling along with decent ratings – by MSNBC standards, that is – until Schultz hit the airwaves. Then it appears that leftists across America jumped for their remote controls and tuned in somewhere else. Anywhere else.
Time
Host
Total Audience
5 pm
Matthews
707,000
6 pm
Cenk
613,000
7 pm
Matthews
601,000
8 pm
O’Donnell
819,000
9 pm
Maddow
959,000
10 pm
Schultz
375,000
11 pm
O’Donnell (rerun)
374,000
Not only does Ed lose 61% of Maddow’s audience, but the 11:00 rerun of Lawrence O’Donnell’s 8 p.m. show falls just 1,000 viewers short of Ed’s total. And the rerun isn’t even in prime time hours.
We’d call this an embarrassing performance, but it’s worse than that. Wholesale rejection by MSNBC’s niche audience may just be a one-way ticket back to North Dakota for Big Eddie.
You may be surprised to learn that no one has died from radiation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. And that must be killing anti-nuclear activists.
You may be surprised to learn that no one has died from radiation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. And that must be killing anti-nuclear activists, because nothing would do more for their cause than nuclear radiation raining death down on thousands.
No one's died. No one's sick. Well, that's not quite true. The anti-nuke people are pretty sick about it.
The Australian, one of the largest newspapers down under, has the unexpected story:
Amazingly, despite the devastation of the site, there have been no radiation-related deaths at Fukushima so far, and only two workers have been hospitalised as a precaution.
The only people to have perished at Fukushima were a man who became trapped in the console of a crane during the earthquake and two who were swept away by the tsunami. The entire toll from the earthquake, remember, is estimated at about 25,000.
While it is not yet over, and radioactivity continues to come out of the devastated plant, the good news is that there are still precisely zero deaths attributable to the release of radiation at the plant, and on the basis of doses received, zero are expected.
No effects on health or significant contamination cases have been identified among the general public evacuated from the area, despite the fact the accident has devastated the plant, and involved fires, explosions, and releases of radioactivity. If there is a single lesson from Chernobyl for the Japanese, it’s that in the years to come misinformation is likely to be more dangerous than radiation.
So just as more people died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than at Three Mile Island, more people died in a crane at Fukushima than died of radiation.
The value of the American dollar has been destroyed in the last two years, yet Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is now defending his “strong dollar policy.”
How do these guys say this stuff with straight faces? The value of the American dollar has been destroyed in the last two years, yet Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is now defending his “strong dollar policy.”
AFP has the hilarious highlights of the Treasury Secretary’s stand-up routine:
"I just flew in from Washington, DC and, boy, are my arms tired. Take my wife. Please. I have a strong dollar policy. Thank you Thank you very much. I'll be here all week."
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner vowed Tuesday that the United States would never follow a strategy to weaken the US dollar.”Our policy has been and will always be, as long as I will be in office, that a strong dollar is in the interest of the country,” Geithner said at a New York conference organized by the Council of Foreign Relations.
“We will never embrace a strategy to weaken the dollar.”
It was the first time this year that Geithner had publicly proclaimed a US strong-dollar policy, a mantra of treasury secretaries for more than a decade.
The words “Tim Geithner” and “strong dollar” should never be used in the same sentence.
Tim Geither is to strong dollar as Jeffrey Dahmer is to vegan.
Legendary ad man Jerry Della Femina blames President Obama for having to sell his Hamptons restaurant, and is buying gold.
Jerry Della Femina is a legend in the advertising business. He created some of the nation’s most famous campaigns back in the 60s and 70s. He was the inspiration for the TV series “Mad Men.” And now he’s had it up to here with President Obama.
Legenary ad man Jerry Della Femina wrote the best book EVER on the advertising business
The New York Post explains Della Femina’s epiphany:
Legendary ad man Jerry Della Femina blames President Obama for having to sell his Hamptons restaurant. In a column for the East Hampton Independent, the inspiration behind the “Mad Men” series says that in 2008, he “decided that this country was falling in love with an attractive, great-speechmaking hustler/socialist” and that he was “dropping out” and would sell off “my houses, my advertising business, my newspaper and my restaurant.” Della Femina sealed a deal this week to sell his Hamptons eatery to the owners of the Houston’s chain.
He writes, “I’m just not ready to have my wealth redistributed. I’m not ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide jobs and because I work a 60-hour week and I earn more than $250,000 a year.” He also told The Post’s Selim Algar, “I truly believe we are headed for disaster. I’m going into gold and silver.”
If you’ve never read Della Femina’s book, “From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You Pearl Harbor,” find an old copy on Amazon.com and buy it.
His exploits in the ad business are guaranteed to make you laugh out loud.
This childhood photo of Barack Obama and his mother seems to explain a lot. Even as a child Barack Obama was a pirate. You know, a swashbuckler whose philosophy was, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.”
Whenever Mrs Editor complains about one of the Editor’s many annoying habits, his stock response is, “Psychologists say a person’s basic personality is established by the age of five.”
Seen in that light, this childhood photo of Barack Obama and his mother Ann Dunham seems to explain a lot. Even as a child Barack Obama was a pirate.
You know, a swashbuckler whose philosophy was, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” A scoundrel willing to sail under a flag other than his country’s. In burying treasure that will never again be found. In making his enemies walk the plank.
Yes, the analogy holds up pretty well until you get to the part about Obama bowing to kings. We can’t explain that.
Don’t run out to the garage looking for them. You only own them because Barack Obama and Tim Geithner “invested”$80 billion of your tax dollars in General Motors and Chrysler.
Forbes magazine did its annual “Worst Cars on the Road” review and you may be disturbed to learn that you own nine of the eleven on the list.
Don’t run out to the garage looking for them. You only own them because Barack Obama and Tim Geithner “invested”$80 billion of your tax dollars in General Motors and Chrysler.
Don't you find it somehow appropriate that a car named the Dodge Nitro is a bomb?
Here’s the bad news from Forbes:
… with three exceptions–the Mercedes-Benz S550, Smart Fortwo and Nissan Titan–all of the cars on this year’s list of the Worst Cars on the Road are (still) made by domestic companies. That includes the Dodge Dakota, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid and Chrysler Town & Country. The only American car company with zero vehicles on the list? Ford.
Ford? You mean the same Ford that declined your tax dollars? The same Ford that now has the largest share of the new car market? The same Ford that is reporting record profits?
Yes, that Ford.
Oh, by the way, just in case you were wondering, here’s the complete list of the Loser Eleven: Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, Dodge Nitro, Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Dakota, Mercedes Benz S550, Chrysler Town and Country, Chevrolet Colorado, Chevrolet Aveo, Jeep Liberty and Nissan Titan.
Can people just butt out and let us raise our kids as we see fit without writing a bunch of idiotic nanny state regulations intended to regulate every last aspect of our lives?”
Anyone here speak Spanish? How do you say “Can you people just butt out and let me raise my child as I see fit without writing a bunch of idiotic nanny state regulations intended to regulate every last aspect of our lives?”
Child suffering severe psychological trauma at the hands of a pinata
We ran across the latest in nanny state nuttiness on Yahoo.com:
Pinatas: A bad idea for your child’s party?
Piñatas are not a good idea for your child’s party. Children should never hit anything with a stick. Even worse, kids can get piñatas in their favorite character too. Doesn’t anyone slightly cringe at the thought of their child whacking Dora the Explorer or Elmo around with a baseball bat? What is that doing for a child’s character? Getting a flower or car piñata is only slightly less worse.
The article was written by Vanessa Bartlemus, whose bio indicates that she has degrees in Journalism and Psychology.
Either one of which makes us want to whack her with a stick.
Chris hosted four British journalists this weekend and in an effort to demean George W. Bush, ended up being corrected by some Brits.
Is there anything better than seeing Chris Matthews embarrassed on national television? OK, sure, seeing Keith Olbermann pantsed by midgets might be funnier, but seeing Chris Matthews embarrassed runs a close second.
Chris hosted four British journalists this weekend and in an effort to demean George W. Bush, made the ludicrous claim that former Prime Minister Tony Blair “was much closer emotionally and politically to Bill Clinton.”
Surely, Matthews never expected them to unanimously disagree. Liberal blogger Andrew Sullivan shook his head no. Gillian Tett of the Financial Times did the same. Katty Kay of the BBC said, “No.” Matt Frei said, “Wrong.”
Kay and Frei didn’t stop there.
Watch the video clip. You’ll love Matthews’ pathetic closing line.
There’s a significant drop in Obama’s approval rating on handling Afghanistan, down 12 points from a year ago.
We doubt that President Obama’s staff is eager to show him the latest poll numbers every morning. Seems like not a day goes by in which he doesn’t hit a new low in one poll or another.
Like this new ABC News poll on his handling of the war in Afghanistan:
Obama laughs, America cries
A record 49 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan, up 8 points since January. And those who disapprove “strongly” outnumber strong approvers by nearly a 2-1 margin.
With Obama holding his monthly national security meeting on Afghanistan today, the results show a significant drop in the president’s approval rating on handling the issue, down 12 points in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll from a year ago.
The change follows an ABC/Post poll last month in which a new low, 31 percent, said the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting. Sixty-four percent said it is not worth fighting, with 49 percent feeling that way “strongly,” both record highs in ABC/Post polls.
Conventional wisdom says President Obama is fighting three wars, but that doesn’t include the one he’s fighting against the American people.
We’re pretty sure that this is just some Zionist trickery. Some evil plot to lure innocent Palestinians into slavery. Some nefarious … what’s that? The statistics were released by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics?
We’re pretty sure that this is just some Zionist trickery. Some evil plot to lure innocent Palestinians into slavery. Some nefarious … what’s that? The statistics were released by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics?
Oh, crap. This doesn’t work with the media’s narrative.
The Palestinian Rock Throwers Union reports an unexpected increase in first time unemployment claims
The Jerusalem Post has the details:
The figures showed that although the Palestinian Authority has banned Palestinians from working in settlements, 14.2 percent of employed Arabs from the West Bank worked in settlements in 2010, an increase by 1 percentage point from the previous year.
According to the Statistics Bureau, the nominal daily median net wage of Palestinians who worked in the West Bank was NIS 76.9 in 2010, while those who were employed in settlements received NIS 150 per day.
The bureau’s Labor Force Survey showed that the Palestinian unemployment rate in the West Bank last year stood at more than 17%, while in the Gaza Strip it reached almost 38%.
To the Palestinians’ credit, the unemployment rate among suicide bombers remains at zero for the tenth consecutive year.
What’s a socialist President to do? He needs to raise the debt limit to keep spending, & the debt limit for his political base, but the public will punish him for doing it.
Hoo boy, what’s a socialist President to do? He needs to raise the debt limit so he can keep spending, needs to increase the debt limit to satisfy his political base, but a new poll indicates that he’d be punished in the polls for doing it.
Want more money? Just crank up the printing presses and let 'er rip!
CBS News reports Obama’s awkward situation:
Despite Obama administration warnings that failing to do so would devastate the economy, a clear majority of Americans say they oppose raising the debt limit, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.
Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.
Eighty-three percent of Republicans oppose raising the limit, along with 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Democrats. Support for raising the debt limit is just 36 percent among Democrats, and only 14 percent among Republicans.
Note that 48% of Democrats oppose raising the debt limit. That means the President is appealing only to the extremists in his own party when he says, “This has worked so well that we should do it again.”
To tell the truth, we’re not actually sure they the extremists. They may actually be morons.
Prominent liberal Andrew Sullivan exposes his remarkable hypocrisy by expressing diametrically opposed points of view on advertising boycotts.
Andrew Sullivan, perhaps the most hypocritical of all liberal bloggers, a role that has made him a frequent guest on liberal broadcast and cable news shows, exposes his remarkable hypocrisy by expressing diametrically opposed points of view on advertising boycotts.
Andrew Sullivan, blurring the line between highly nuanced and highly hypocrtical
Here’s how he expressed his opinion of the advertiser boycott of Glenn Beck on Sep 30, 2010:
As you probably know, Fox host Glenn Beck has been losing lots of advertisers — about 20 so far, including Wal-Mart, CVS and GEICO — for calling Barack Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture.” I clicked around to see what people on the right were saying about the donnybrook, and found this page from RedState.org, which appears to be organizing a counter boycott, or is at least offering the sinister warning that “there will be repercussions from our side if [these companies] are so willing to become pawns of the left.”
… And yet I cannot help but think there is a crucial difference between GEICO’s decision to drop Glenn Beck and RedState’s decision to drop GEICO. The difference is this: Wal-Mart has a good reason to boycott Beck, because Beck actually did something idiotic and indefensible.
So there you have it. If someone says something idiotic and indefensible, they deserve to be boycotted by advertisers. Unless, of course, the target of a boycott is liberal, in which case Sullivan effortlessly switches to the opposite position.
As you may be aware, the liberal website Wonkette is now experiencing its own advertiser boycott after running a remarkably offensive article last week about Sarah Palin’s handicapped son Trig. That caused Sullivan, who is obsessed with the belief that Bristol Palin is Trig’s real mother, to experience a sudden change of heart.
Here’s his reaction to an advertiser boycott of Wonkette:
I feel as queasy about this flexing of Palinite muscle as I do about the original, disgusting, asinine story. In some ways, I see a legitimate come-uppance for a tacky site that published a simply inexcusable piece of mean-spirited dreck using a child who cannot defend himself, treating him as if he were subhuman, which he most definitely isn’t. But I also recoil from mob action like this, for the impact it has on fearless free speech and the chilling effect it will have on an already cowed and defensive MSM when covering the truly tough stuff about Palin.
Please allow us to summarize Sullivan’s highly nuanced position as we understand it:
Boycotts of conservatives, good. Boycotts of liberals, bad.
In this video clip, Obama radical Cass Sunstein is testifying before the Senate and starts talking about environmental justice.
In case you don’t know who Cass Sunstein is, let us fill you in. He runs President Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Think of him as the Red Tape Czar. Obama and he go way back because Sunstein has taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 27 years. He’s one of the main radicals in an administration teeming with them.
In fact, what Sunstein does for Obama domestically, his wife, Samantha Power, does internationally. She’s a member of the National Security Council and is Senior Director the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. She’s rumored to be in line to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
The bottom line: Sunstein and Power are two of the main drivers behind Obama’s radical agenda.
OK, enough background. Now let’s get to the video clip. Sunstein is testifying before the Senate and starts talking about environmental justice. (Question: Why does justice always appear to be the thing least desired by people who talk about it incessantly?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfHrT3tYxrU
Joe Lieberman treats him with complete respect and asks how costs and benefits are calculated. Sunstein throws out a lot of buzzwords and attempts to make it sound like costs and benefits are somehow scientifically determined.
Then Republican Senator Ben Johnson steps up to the plate and nails Sunstein’s complete line of bull.
“How does that create a burden of proof,” Johnson asks, “when it’s a loophole you can drive a truck through?”
In other words, Sunstein’s just making up shit up as he goes along.
Just once, just once we want to see a member of the House or Senate look one of these guys in the eyes and say, “I have no questions for you. You’re a freaking radical dedicated to destroying this country. I have no interest in wasting my time on you except to expose what you really are.”
In the IHTM tradition of never missing an opportunity to run a story about scantily-clad women, we bring you breaking news from Lead, South Dakota.
In the IHTM tradition of never missing an opportunity to run a story about scantily-clad women, we bring you breaking news from Lead, South Dakota, where voters defeated a Tuesday referendum that would have allowed nude dancing in “Historic Downtown Lead.” And nude, in our opinion, trumps scantily-clad every damn time.
It's for the children. No, wait, that argument may not work in this case.
Stripped down to its essence, the new ordinance would have allowed nude dancing at the Wild Thing Saloon, which brought in dancers for two days in December and crowds went … well, wild.
The event drew “hundreds of extra visitors into Lead,” which really, really needs extra visitors because the biggest industry in town is the abandoned Homestake Mine where scientists now run experiments testing for cosmic particles.
Not a lot of job opportunities for the average Joe in the testing-for-cosmic-particles business, ya know?
Lead City Commissioner Casey Borsch said turnout for the referendum was “considerably higher” than normal, which we’re guessing means more people, not happier people. Voters rejected the Wild Thing idea 535-303.
Unfortunately, not every naked woman story has a happy ending. (Especially when a town gets older and there’s no lead left in either its mining shafts or its miners’ shafts. If you know what we mean.)
Oh, well. While “Historic Lead, South Dakota” languishes in the economic doldrums because of their prudish sensibilities, two miles away in “Historic Deadwood, South Dakota,” where they legalized gambling in 1989, they’re into their third decade of boom times.
Saphia Khambalia is a reporter for City TV in Toronto. In fact, she’s a very attractive reporter which makes this video clip even funnier.
Saphia Khambalia is a reporter for City TV in Toronto. In fact, she’s a very attractive reporter which makes this video clip even funnier.
She was doing a story on Charlie Sheen’s appearance at Toronoto’s Massey Hall when she had an unfortunate incident occur while she was on the air.
Toronto’s Daily Mail breathlessly describes the incident:
But as visible windy conditions bluster around her, the reporter’s nose begins to run seconds into her report. She manages to clear her nose once by combining it with a quick swish of her dark hair, only for the troubling watery stream to return seconds later. The embarrassed reporter attempts to hurriedly sign off her report and hand back to a studio colleague as her runny nose threatens to spoil her on-air appearance again. But she is powerless to prevent the nasal malfunction as the stream falls from her nose onto her microphone at the split second she finishes her piece.
We are incredibly proud right now that we were mature enough not to do any snot puns in this story.
This is honestly one of the funniest video clips ever. Joanne Kloppenburg, the losing Democrat candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court…
This is honestly one of the funniest video clips ever. Joanne Kloppenburg, the losing Democrat candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, held a press conference on Wednesday to announce that she was demanding a recount.
The following hilarious question and answer ensued:
Reporter: You held a press conference to announce that you were the winner of the election. Do you still feel that you’re the winner of the election? Kloppenburg: (pause) (continue to pause) (look like a deer in the headlights) (we leave the room to make a sandwich and she’s still pausing when we got back) How I feel … I feel that I have … ummm … been a winner in any number of ways…
The election is apparently not one of them. Kloppenburg knows it, her opponent knows it and everyone in Wisconsin knows it.
We occasionally get together with a few buddies to play poker. We cordially invite Joanne Kloppenburg to our next game and pray that she brings a lot of cash.
The numbers are devastating for Chicago Jesus and his Democrat apostles in latest CBS/New York Times poll. Absolutely devastating.
The numbers are devastating for Chicago Jesus and his Democrat apostles in latest CBS/New York Times poll. Absolutely devastating.
You never know what’s going to happen in politics, and eighteen months is an eternity, but it appears that Obama’s brand of Chicago socialism has been thoroughly rejected by the American people.
The people were angry and they casteth stones, for they learned that Chicago Jesus was a false prophet
The Washington Examiner reports the ugly details:
70% of Americans feel things in this country are seriously off on the wrong track. That is the highest number since the 79% registered in 1/11/09 when President Bush was still in office.
80% rate the national economy as bad (44% fairly/36% very). Only 19% rate it as good (2% very/17% fairly).
39% think the economy is getting worse, only 23% say it is getting better. Last month those numbers were even at 26. In February they were flipped at 32% better, 22% worse.
57% disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy. That is the highest disapproval measured by the CBS/NYT poll. His 38% approval is matched only once by a pre-Democractic election wipe out October poll.
59% disapprove of Obama’s handling of the federal budget. Also the highest CBS/NYT has ever measured that number.
Obama’s Libya approval numbers have completely flipped from 50/29 approve in March to 45/39 disapprove today.
46% disapprove of the way Obama is handling foreign policy. That is the highest number ever for Obama in a CBS/NYT poll. His 39% approval on FP is also his lowest score ever.
55% tell NYT/CBS they would rather have a smaller government providing fewer services. Only 33% want a bigger government with more services.
When asked “Do you think Barack Obama has the same priorities for the country as you have, or doesn’t he?” 53% said no and 43% said yes. When Obama was inaugurated those numbers were 65% and 28% no.
These numbers prove one thing: Chicago Jesus was a false prophet, but there is a God.
What could be more entertaining than watching two leftist hacks spin for Planned Parenthood? The question isn’t whether they’ll do it, but rather what lame, unsupportable argument they’ll attempt to advance.
What could be more entertaining than watching two leftist hacks spin for Planned Parenthood? The question isn’t whether they’ll do it, but rather what lame, unsupportable argument they’ll attempt to advance.
MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts and Politico’s Chris Frates didn’t disappoint.
They agree that Planned Parenthood’s problem is merely a branding issue. You know, the kind of thing that can be solved with a catchy slogan and a couple press releases.
Is it just us or does this sound remarkably similar to what the Democrats said about themselves after the November, 2010 elections.
But, of course, one should not be surprised that Planned Parenthood and the Democrat Party should present virtually the same argument since they’re virtually the same organization.
