This one by Mark Steyn is just too funny….

A few weeks ago, Ann Coulter announced that she was bored of American politics and spending her days watching Turner Classic Movies. I confess that, when it comes to Beltway melodrama, I too am fighting vainly the old ennui, and minded to plump up the pillows and settle back with a bucket of bonbons and a beribboned Shih-tzu for an all-night Norma Shearer marathon.

At least, unlike Washington, there’s a chance you may catch something you haven’t already seen a hundred times before. For example, I’ve a yen to see “Roberta” (RKO, 1935), in which Irene Dunne sings:

“Yesterdays

Yesterdays

Days I knew as happy sweet sequester’d days …”

I believe that was the last known use of this blameless and mellifluous word until it was conscripted by the political class for this month’s dreary Mayan Apocalypse of the Month thrill ride. Say what you like about those Mayan guys, but they only schedule an apocalypse once every 5,126 years. Only Washington would try to pull it off every six weeks.

If I understand correctly, by the time you read this, the planes will be dropping from the skies; the drip-feeds in every emergency room will be dry; every creature on the endangered species list will have broken free from our pristine federally manned national parks to be left for roadkill in the potholed asphalt of America’s crumbling interstates; you’ll turn on your bathroom faucet only to find the town reservoir choked with fecal coliform; the ebola virus will be rampant across Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and other swing states, where it will nevertheless enjoy higher approval ratings than Mario Rubio and every other prospective GOP nominee.

LOL…Read the entire column here.

We have to agree with various fellow right thinkers and, no doubt, a few of the less sanity challenged Democrats out there that Obama did indeed look sort of foolish campaigning on The View while SecState Hillary Clinton was going tooth and nail, so to speak, with the Mohammedans at the U.N.

But what can you do, right?

Here’s a president that, in our opinion here at Hard Astarboard is far and away the worst choice the American people have made in the entire history of our great nation, even surpassing the “worstness” of the former holder of that mantle, Jimmy Carter.

This one’s all about lies, capitulation in the face of the most insanely ruthless enemy we’ve ever faced as a country, the trampling underfoot of the Constitution, coverups…

Did I say cover-ups?

How’s this one grab you?

From Breitbart.com:

Cover Up: Report Says U.S. Knew Al-Qaeda Behind Libya Attack Within 24 Hours

If these reports are true, and I suspect we all know they are — what we have here is nothing more than a scandalous White House cover up and Obama’s Media Palace Guards so terrified of Obama losing, they refuse to give it the coverage it demands, the attention it deserves, or to make Obama pay a political price for his role and responsibility.
According to Eli Lake of the Daily Beast, 24 hours after the assassination of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, and a four full days before Obama sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice out to all the Sunday shows to blame what happened on a protest gone bad over a YouTube video, the American government had already concluded al-Qaeda was behind the attack:

Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …

The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”

Every day it becomes more and more obvious that fearing headlines that screamed “Al-Qaeda Assassinates American Ambassador,” the Obama administration and the media colluded to push the narrative about a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video.

Moreover, the media aided and abetted this cover up by turning Romney’s valid criticism of the Cairo Embassy apology into a week-long narrative meant to distract from Obama’s collapsing foreign policy in the Middle East, the ignoring of direct threats from al-Qaeda in advance of the attacks, and not beefing up security on the anniversary of 9/11..

As a result, thus far, the Obama Administration has gotten away with outright lies, likely security lapses that proved fatal, and the trotting out of our UN Ambassador to look Americans and the media in the eye and say what she and the government knew wasn’t true.

We expect this from politicians.

What we don’t expect is for the media to be such a willing a co-conspirator.

My emphasis there.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that bit about the media, not in light of their performance in recent years as more a propaganda outlet for the far left than a legitimate source for fair and impartial reporting. They got Obama elected, for example, by duping a lot of Americans whom, we believe, should now be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for casting votes for good ol’ Barry O, though not nearly as ashamed as the media themselves ought to be for sticking to their guns even after seeing what the current administration has wrought in the last painful 44 months of “hope and change”.

In their war on America and all it stands for, I suppose that the liberals’ Hope & Change is their version of “Shock & Awe”.

Meanwhile, back at the raunch, the Obama administration’s scapegoating of “the film that rocked the Islam-Once-Again-Offended world” for what they knew darn well was organized well beforehand by al-Qaeda opened the doors for the Muslim Brotherhood Islamofascist now running Egypt to call for restrictions on Americans’ — yes, our — First Amendment rights.

The sooner we can get this veritable enemy of the state out of the White House, the safer we’ll be and the quicker we’ll be able to start making our country look more like America again, rather than the third world country the left is turning it into.

First, I want to make a brief observation regarding President Obama’s utter contempt for the hard earned tax money taken from hard working Americans.

He (The Communistander-in-Chief) has so far, as President, taken something like 38 fund raising trips here to New York. This is to raise money for HIS PERSONAL CAMPAIGN, yet is he, or is his campaign warchest, financing these trips?

“Of course not!” You exclaim, “Don’t be silly!”

We, the taxpaying American people, are paying for these trips, and we’re not simply financing a Greyhound bus ticket and a couple of nights at Motel 6, maybe a small per diem for lunch.

Oh, no.

We’re paying for a lot of aviation fuel, accommodations for His Majesty’s inevitable large entourage at the Waldorf Astoria, where they do a heck of a lot more than just leave the light on for ya’, travel, accommodations and deployment of O’s Secret Service detail and Lord only knows what other federally (taxpayer) funded expenses. Oh, yeah, and then there’s the cost to New Yorkers for all the police overtime and related costs.

All that so the president, who vowed “change” when he ran for office (we’ve gotten “change” alright), can panhandle here for further spare change.

Alright, having said that, on to the post at hand, which is courtesy of a great column by David L. Goetsch at Patriot Update.

One of the principal strategies of the left for the past 40 years has been the dumbing down of America’s public schools. Dumbing down public education at all levels is how the left is transforming Americans into a flock of naïve, ill-informed, easily-led sheep. A major component of the dumbing down process is historical revisionism. Historical revisionism is the concept liberals use to revise America’s past to suit their agenda in the present.

One of the most prolific practitioners of historical revisionism is President Obama. When it suits his purposes to do so, the president will simply make up history that never happened or distort what did happen until it appears to support his agenda. President Obama’s most infamous act of historical revisionism came when he claimed that not only is American not a Christian nation, it is one of the world’s largest Muslim nations. To make such an absurd statement, Barack Obama had to ignore more than 200 years of historical evidence, evidence that is readily available and clearly contradicts him.

Historical revisionists such as President Obama employ one or more of five methods for distorting America’s history to suit their purposes: 1) deconstructionism, 2) post-structuralism, 3) modernism, 4) minimalism, and 5) academic cronyism. Thinking people who respect and admire the truth no matter where it leads need to understand these five methods, recognize when they are being employed, and challenge the liberals who use them to distort the truth. The best way to challenge historical revisionists is to call the world’s attention to their use of these five wrong-headed, deceitful, and intellectually lazy methods.

Read the rest here.

This, as they say, hits the proverbial nail right on the head.

From Godfather Politics

In a speech the other day in Youngstown, Ohio, Vice President Joe Biden screamed at the audience, “They just don’t get us! They don’t get who we are!”

“They,” of course, means you and me, conservative types who are just too dim to understand all the wonderful things the Obama Administration is doing for the country.

The accusation came after a rant about how jobs are “coming back” and how there were “signs of life” in the Heartland because of the administration’s hard work and economic policies.

It was a typical liberal shoutfest where the louder you yell something, the more true it becomes. I’ve heard it numerous times from some of my educated friends who should know better: “You’re blaming the guy driving the firetruck for starting the fire.” For liberals, it’s we conservatives who look crazy.

So it’s helpful once in a while to do a reality check. A little self-analysis, as with confession, is good for the soul. I mean, if you were to go crazy, wouldn’t you at least want to know that you were?

In the case of political views, side-by-side comparison of liberal vs. conservative views on President Obama is one illuminating technique.

Anyway:

President Obama as a person

Conservative: Obama comes from a highly suspicious background in which he was raised and schooled around numerous anti-American socialists and communists; vital records such as schooling, medical history and selective service remain not only unavailable but deliberately kept under wraps; there is evidence that suggests Obama could have used false identities and been involved in fraud; even his birth certificate appears to have been forged.

Liberal: He’s black. He’s cool.

President Obama’s economic performance

Conservative: President Obama’s stimulus packages have shown no effect in improving the economy; there is ample evidence to suggest that most of the money was used as payback to supporters; he has turned auto and other companies into essentially state-run businesses; jobs have not come back in any significant way since Obama took office, and any statistical “gains” have mostly been attributable to large numbers of Americans simply giving up any hope of finding a job, thus shrinking the number of people counted as “jobless”; three years into it, Obama is still blaming President Bush for the economy.

Liberal: President Obama says the economy is getting better, and I believe him. He’s black. He’s cool.

Obama’s foreign policy

Conservative: Obama negotiates from weakness; he began his administration by apologizing to many countries that have been our enemies and bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia; he told the Russians over an open mic that he is essentially willing to cave to their demands that we remove missile defenses in Europe; he has tacitly and overtly encouraged violence in the Middle East, even engaging in military actions against Libya without informing Congress; he has weakened America’s standing in the world and pursued a policy of having America follow the crowd rather than lead.
Liberal: Obama says we are stronger than ever, and I believe him. He’s black. You’re a racist. He’s cool. You drool.

Obama’s domestic policies

Conservative: Obama has appointed an unprecedented number of “czars” who are not subject to any scrutiny or approval by Congress or voters; his TSA is out of control, violating the privacy of travelers under the pretense of airport security; the Department of Homeland Security and the IRS have been allowed to target conservative groups for harassment; Obama’s cabinet members and czars have shown repeatedly they are willing to go around the law by quietly creating “policies” for their respective agencies that were rejected as laws by Congress; the administration has demonstrated a culture of disdain for constitutional limits on presidential power; the president himself has tried to unconstitutionally decree that religious institutions must buy into a health insurance policy with abortion and contraceptive provisions that violate religious conscience.

Liberal: Obama knows best. You’re racist. I’m going to report you. You should be on a watch list. Shut up.

This is soooo accurate!

So, in summation, the reason conservatives know we aren’t crazy is that we actually pay attention to what’s coming out of Washington and draw logical conclusions. Could we be wrong on any given issue? Of course. All humans are fallible.

Liberals on the other hand seem to base their beliefs solely on the fact that someone in authority “says it’s so.” So liberalism is in essence just irrational faith.

A memo to our liberal friends: The next time you go to some online site to complain about how stupid and dangerous you think conservatives are, try looking in a mirror first.

AMEN!!!!

You may recall this post on the Komen Fund deciding to discontinue their largesse to Infanticide Central Planned Parenthood, after which they rescinded that decision.

Well, from the Washington Times:

Susan G. Komen’s short-lived decision to drop grants to Planned Parenthood was met with fury from the left wing, and its outrage was immediately reported by the liberal news media. But it wasn’t the first time Komen had been attacked from the left. As a private charity, Komen was within its rights to not renew grants for breast health care for Planned Parenthood, a group that doesn’t even perform mammograms, but that wasn’t how the media covered it. CNN blamed the decision on conservatives, while MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell claimed that “the politics of stopping Planned Parenthood has now put more women at risk of dying from breast cancer.”

It didn’t take long for that uproar on the left to prompt a reversal of Komen’s decision, and for Komen Vice President Karen Handel to resign from the breast cancer charity. The controversy also renewed criticism of Komen over a completely different issue: whether or not the common chemical BPA (formally known as bisphenol A), is a risk factor for breast cancer.

Above emphasis mine.

Can you believe this?

Of course you can! After all, we’re talking liberals, here, particularly the liberal…um, “progressive” media, for whom truth plays second fiddle to political agendas.

Read the whole thing here.

So you might say the Komen Fund was mugged by Planned Parenthood, the left wing media and their weaselist infanticidal proponents.

Chuck here, “the boss man” put me back to work. No sweat, friends, I really enjoy this.

So, honesty and liberals.

Apples and oranges. Rocks and books. Pterodactyls and aardvarks. Paper clips and fish.

In today’s Best Of The Web Today, James Taranto writes about some emails industrious hackers wrenched from the hallowed files of your garden variety liberal academics whom, no doubt, would be the first to become outraged/ indignant/ majorly offended (take your pick) if accused of even considering anything like that which Mr. Taranto describes in Settled Science?

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E.
Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science–a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.” (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC’s conclusions.)

The press’s view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

Yes, honesty and liberals, rifles and feather dusters, automobiles and coral reefs, steel and rhubarb…

…so short-changed by the mainstream media in almost every area that can be equated with politics, but none so much as our involvement in Iraq.

They deny that we’re fighting an enemy there, peddling a story of pure civil war in which U.S. servicemen are dropping like flies, the Iraqis want us out of there, Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists are 100% our fault, etc, etc.

They ignore every positive event that occurs over there.

They make an instant buffet of the slightest allegation that any U.S. troops have committed a wrongdoing, slandering the troops in the most extreme ways before any investigation has even begun.

Since the majority of Americans count on the MSM to deliver them accurate and complete news, the propaganda they actually receive gives them leftward slanted and highly inaccurate reports of the state of affairs in Iraq, and this is the information upon which they rely when it comes time to vote.

The latest example?

Water boarding, keeping interrogation subjects in uncomfortable positions, other techniques that do no physical damage to said subjects, the “plight” of captured terrorists at GITMO, which the left has compared with gulags, concentration camps and the killing fields of the Pol Pot regime, and the embarrassment to which still other jihadi murderers were subjected at Abu Graibh commanded a lengthy and aggressive crusade by the mainstream media, yet graphic pictures of fiendish tortures from a captured al-Qaeda interrogation manual and of the tools of the trade don’t even warrant honorable mention from the MSM. Whose side are they on, again?

Since the left would have the American people believe that there is no al-Qaeda activity in Iraq (that would indicate that we actually have an enemy to fight in Iraq), they ignore other stories that place al-Qaeda in the country.

The mainstream media is doing an outstanding job as a propaganda tool for the left. They are also a discerning lot — the only rank and file soldiers and Marines we ever hear from on that quarter seem to be the scarce few they can find who are against the war. Otherwise, most so-called liberal intellectuals will tell you that the folks who are over there fighting have been duped by Bush & Cheney and don’t know what they’re talking about when they support their mission in Iraq. They ignore the large numbers of volunteers who stick around for a second tour, they ignore our troops’ contributions to the betterment of education, lifestyles and infrastructure in Iraq, and the progress they’ve made in training Iraqi police and military personnel to eventually take over all law enforcement and national security duties. They ignore the courage and spirit of the Iraqi people who turned out twelve million strong to vote in a democratic government. They ignore the success of the post Saddam stock market, the copious publications of the burgeoning free press…

…yet when an American soldier is killed, they crow gleefully and shout about it from the rooftops, adding the casualty to their one-sided scorecard. If a U.S. military unit waxes thirty five terrorists, it is: 35 Dead in U.S. Firefight rather than Marines Kill 35 Terrorists.

Over at And Rightly So, Civil Truth has posted a lengthy but well worth the read compilation of beliefs on the war and U.S. politics by a man who not only survived the destruction of 9/11, but a full tour as a Marine in Iraq as well.

Although I haven’t been what one would term “pro-draft”, the writer makes some convincing points in favor of a draft that have me reevaluating my point of view on that score, and other than his choices for President in 2008, I largely agree with most of what he has to say.

President Bush’s veto of the pork-ridden, cut & run, head for the tall timber, tails between our legs, whimpering surrender redeployment deadlined Congressional rendering evidently backed the Democrats far enough into a corner that they were forced to submit a much more sane and acceptable bill.

Of course, this is only a brief respite from the sabotage tactics crowd over on the port side and their mainstream media hacks, those tenaciously anti-American scumbags progressive souls, to borrow a line from a governor I once successfully voted for, “will be bock!”

…tedious in their efforts to “interest” society in their menu of micromanagement.

Of whom do I speak?

The portside media, researchers who are probably compensated, in large part, by grants financed by our tax dollars and assorted blank-minded, modern flower children who need a cause, any cause will do as long as it isn’t in any way conservative.

The people who feel it is their mandate from On-High to tell the rest of us what we can and can’t eat, the more enterprising among whom will probably soon be selling Trans-fat Credits.

The usual suspects, liberals from the Land Of The Lotus Eaters (The Odyssey) whose ambitions include snatching meat from the jaws of human carnivores and spooning yogurt into our mouths in its place.

The folks who now deem attending a good, old fashioned backyard barbecue a dangerous risk.

While my own inclination is to tell such critters to mind their own business, that what I choose to eat is my affair, I’ve had liberals tell me that the reason these people are so aggressive about their beliefs is that they are concerned that “unhealthy eaters” will one day cost taxpayers a lot of money on health care.

“Since when,” goes my stock reply, “did liberals give a flying f–k about spending the taxpayers’ money on social services related issues? You guys even endorse spending our money on illegal aliens!”

The truth is, American liberals are quite sure, and with good reason, that their efforts to trump our present form of government with socialism are succeeding. Thinking liberals are actually looking past their initial political victories at the practicalities to follow: Their social programs will cost the U.S. taxpayer dearly, and they need to find ways to cut costs, one being to put the proletariat on a diet of tofu and rice, unsweetened green tea and spring water to keep them healthy.

This program would never work for me, I was born by Occident and could never Orient myself to such a diet.

Of course, during an exchange of ideas with the flower kids who have long enjoyed desirable sustenance therein, I understand: There are benefits to be had from consuming a lot of tofu.

Indeed.

I recall an afternoon about three years ago, at an IHOP in rural Illinois, when the waitress informed me that they could not, by law, serve me a rare cheeseburger. I always order/cook my steaks and burgers rare (except prime rib, which I do medium), and requested a visit from the manager. After some debate, I explained, “It’s not how long you cook something that kills bacteria, it’s how hot you cook it.” He finally agreed on condition that “no matter what happens”, I would tell nobody that I’d been served a rare burger under his auspices. He was from India, somewhat recently to judge by his accent, and if he ever returns to the old country he’ll be a superb candidate for Bangalorian telephone Tech Support. He’d undoubtedly make a great Fred, or a passable Bill (Beel?). I only mention this because our conversation would have made an outstanding comedy skit based largely on his accent.

Relax, there’s no bigotry here, just a paucity of political correctness. I grew up in a Jewish family wherein one of our favorite holiday dinner table (or Passover seder) customs was sharing the most irreverant-but-funny Jewish jokes we’d run across. Even my grandmother, who played a puritanical role in the family, shared jokes gleefully, and hers were some of the most risque, go figure. The way I grew up, PC has never stood a chance with me and never will.

Back on track, these “healthy choice” advocates seem to assume that everybody will leap onto a government program at the first sign of illness. No one, they presume, has an HMO as back-up or sufficient wealth to obtain timely and quality medical care rather than substandard and often demeaning, government bureaucracy administered Socialized Medicine offerings.

Wrong! At least as long as the government doesn’t make it legally mandatory that all citizens participate in the program (Senior Ministers Pelosovitch and Reidakov would have no trouble with that, nor would any other mega-wealthy, double standard liberal)…

Right, while you and I are comparing tofu and rice recipes, Pelosi and Murtha would be sitting down to a chateaubriand dinner. Perhaps a platter of canard a’la orange, which the public, or non elite, can’t be allowed because of the fat content in a duck. Quack!

Michael Moore will be doing humongous pig on a spit for one.

Rosie O’Donnell will be chowing down on camel tripe and the fatty parts of a whole uncooked lamb using her bare and greasy hands, clamoring for ten pounds of pork chops as liquified provender drips down the front of her blouse.

For the rest of us, well, please pass the rice….

Sorry about that, I couldn’t help myself. What a pun! What a — oh… well, the title of this post certainly applies; if one considers what the mainstream media has been focusing on of late. First there’s the 100% political firing of a small quantity of U.S. attorneys, which happens to be a mid-term event that is practiced by nearly all administrations — as we know, Clinton’s Justice department terminated all of theirs. There was no MSM uproar when the latter occurred under Clinton, but since there is a Republican administration ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue led by George W. Bush, the former has been blown up to Armageddonal proportions by the liberal media as the Democrats raise the roof with blaring accusations and utterly moronic, blatantly politics-based innuedo….

It is eroding the Anna Nicole moment, which was just starting to wan, anyway, for all except those who are truly without lives of their own to live, and as it gathers momentum, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces that she is going to Syria on a “fact finding” tour. The White House requests that she not go, but she announces that she’s going, anyway.

She does, and not only does she perform the Kiss of Shame on Bashir Assad, she delivers a false diplomatic message from Tel Aviv to Damascus that not only isn’t she asked to deliver, but there has been no message sent. Then she reports false peace policies of Assad’s government regarding Israel to the local media. There is no “fact finding” involved in her tour, only hints and not so subtle hints that indicate that the United States has two completely different sets of official policies on the execution of the War on Terror, and that the Democrats’ policies are equally as official as the President’s. What she is doing is in total violation of the concerned articles of the U.S. Constitution, dangerous to both our diplomatic relations and Bush’s message to the world on America’s resolve to defeat terrorism and a serious threat to U.S. troops in Iran and Afghanistan.

Some of the same liberal media that supports her editorializes her activities in a negative light while most of the same liberals that disagree with every point made at conservative blogs they frequent of course present laughably thin, generally downright stupid defenses of Pelosi’s harebrained, purely political exploits.

Don Imus comes into the picture, making a joke that has the race baiting team of Sharpton & Jackson crawling out from beneath their respective stones — did I employ the word “picayune” at the top of this post? Um, sure did! Back in the 1970s when I lived in New York, Imus had the morning show on an A.M. station while Howard Stern worked mid afternoon to early evening on the same station. Both of them were shock jocks, and both made a living out of boldly offending whatever or whomever came to mind. Nothing has changed with either, particularly Imus. Now he makes a “nappy haired ho” remark about players on a female college basketball team, which is not, by far, the most offensive thing he’s ever said into the mic, and it’s suddenly treated as the most important, dynamic story on the planet by the MSM and Democrats (as well as a few soulless Republican politicians whose lives revolve around pandering for votes wherever they can find them), conveniently drowning out much of the Pelosi-in-Syria affair. Now, Nancy’s talking about taking a trip to Iran to nasalize some butt for Ahmadmanjihad.

Liberal politicians are doing their best to take a bite out of our First Amendment rights by enacting “hate crime” laws that aren’t crimes.

The Democrats have absolutely no issues of a positive nature on the table, everything they do attacks the President, the Constitution and the American way of life, and most of their purely political assaults are based upon trivialities that they themselves have blown up into maelstroms of misinterpreted laws and ridiculous innuendo, from Scooter Libby, who did nothing wrong, to the federal judge firings, the liberal media conducting disinformation campaigns to bring things to a boil.

The media we are confronted with today is a joke, I mean why waste money on a newspaper today when one can enjoy the same awareness of what’s going on in the world by reading The Onion?

I recently did a post on the myth of global warming, in which I opined that the entire issue is a piece of nonsense that liberals have used to engender a goodly quantity of “political hay”, such as Robert Kennedy, Jr’s assertion that Katrina was Dubya’s fault, because he didn’t go along with the Kyoto BS and resultantly, Hurricane Katrina did its number on the Gulf Coast. The wingnut journalist, a Kennedy, hmmmm, actually bade us look to “the science” as proof that the hurricane was all Bush’s fault.

One of the commenters to the post, a liberal thinker, gave me the usual politically inspired argument and I answered with a link to one of the many websites debunking the myth and I haven’t heard from him since, though I would appreciate his input after reading at that site.

However, he hasn’t been back, and since then a blogger for whom I have a ton of respect has done a post on the issue that links to some profoundly definitive websites.

I refer you, at this point, to Pat’s Rick…