I Have No Words To Add, As This Says It All

In Dire Straits, ACORN Begins New Fundraising Push

No, not the one they are talking about over at HotAir ... this one:



I know, I know .... raaaaaaaaaaaacisssst.

Sprinter Has Male And Female Sex Organs

Get a load of this:

World 800-meter champion Caster Semenya of South Africa has male and female sexual organs, the Sydney Morning Herald said on Friday, posing an ethical and political quandary for athletics' ruling body.

In a related story, DHS Secretary Janet Napalitano:


(with apologies to Norm MacDonald for ripping off his schtick)

And Speaking of Bat Shit Crazy

Via Gateway Pundit, it looks like one of Obama's (unconstitutional) czars is a 9/11 Truther whackjob:

It figures.
Barack Obama's communist Green Czar Van Jones is a Truther.
He believes the Bush Administration was behind 9-11 and signed the official 9-11 Truth Document demanding a further investigation.

So in the future, when Van Jones says or does something incredibly stupid or embarrassing to Obama administration, don't forget what Machiavelli said about a leader's chosen advisers:

THE choice of servants is of no little importance to a prince, and they are good or not according to the discrimination of the prince. And the first opinion which one forms of a prince, and of his understanding, is by observing the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful he may always be considered wise, because he has known how to recognize the capable and to keep them faithful. But when they are otherwise one cannot form a good opinion of him, for the prime error which he made was in choosing them.

Joe Biden. Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner. Chicago Thug Rahm Emanual. Dr. Ezekiel Emanual. Science czar John Holdren. These are some of the men Obama has chosen as his secrataries, and by these men he should be judged.

Pretty damning, isn't it?

Pat Buchanan is Bat Shit Crazy

Ok, so I'm two days late on this - sue me. Either way, WTF is up with Pat Buchanan, who now want to shift the blame for WWII away from Hitler:

If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser's fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

Right, Pat. Hitler didn't want it. Just like Bill Clinton, he of priestly sexual morals, didn't want that blow job from Monica. You see, his pants just fell down, and Monica unilaterally started gobbling on the Bent one. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Maybe Pat's still upset about that uncle he lost at Auschwitz - i.e. the one that fell out of the guard tower.*

Either way, Pat's one guy who conservatism could do without. Pat and his defenders often get testy when they are accused of anti-semitism, but now that Pat is crossing the line into a full-blown defense of Adolf Hitler, I'd say the shoe fits. I'm sure he'll say the Jews had it coming in his next column.

* - I just made that up, but hey, it could be true with a Nazi-defender like Pat.

Coming Soon To A Theater Near You

via Gallery of the Absurd:

Why Conservatives Should Pay No Heed To Anything Written By David Brooks Ever Again

Via Stacy McCain, I found this piece on David Brooks (originally published on The New Republic's website, then strangely removed, but preserved for posterity by Google Cache). It confirms everything you thought about Brooks being an Obama suck-up. Brooks' fellatio of Obama is far worse than even his harshest critic on the right ever thought. A couple of samples:

That first encounter is still vivid in Brooks’s mind. “I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant,” Brooks says, “and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”

“I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” he explains. “Of recent presidents, Clinton could sort of talk like us, but Obama is definitely--you could see him as a New Republic writer. He can do the jurisprudence, he can do the political philosophy, and he can do the politics. I think he’s more talented than anyone in my lifetime. I mean, he is pretty dazzling when he walks into a room. So, that’s why it’s important he doesn’t fuck this up.”

A similar thing happened in early March, when chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Brooks to complain about that morning’s column criticizing Obama’s spending programs; later in the day, the White House sent over a chart showing that spending was, in fact, holding to historical norms. Brooks told me that Obama had personally signed the chart “Dear Comrade Brooks.”

My apologies to those of you that threw up your lunch. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go throw up mine.

UPDATE: The piece is back up at The New Republic.

Fat Fuck Used To Joke About Chappaquiddick

Via The Corner at NRO comes this little revelation:

Jules Crittenden mentioned on his blog he heard Ed Klein, former foreign editor of Newsweek and editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine, recalling on air that Ted Kennedy liked to joke about Chappaquiddick. It seemed to defy belief, so I listened to the episode of The Diane Rehm Show in question and sure enough — I've transcribed what Klein told guest host Katy Kay (Here's a link to the audio in WMA format, relevant portion starts at about 30:15):

HotAir has audio via YouTube.

This just defies words. What a sick, disgusting, depraved piece of shit Ted Kennedy was. I didn't write anything on the day of his death, because I didn't have anything good to say about him. I've always thought he was a horrible human being as well as someone who (along with his family) has done incalculable damage to this country and has had an overwhelmingly negative impact.

But this just takes the fucking cake. And you know what? Liberals will excuse him for this, simply because he was a liberal.

Fuck you, Ted Kennedy, you fat, disgusting drunk piece of shit. Burn in hell.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the GQ piece that Michael Kelly wrote in 1990 regarding Senator Big Tits. It's long and it more thoroughly chronicles what a total piece of shit he really was. And keep in mind, he still had 19 more years left to go at this point.

Oh, And Speaking Of Palin ....

... she uses her Facebook page to argue for a heretofore overlooked aspect of what could constitute real health care reform:

So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he'll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

To broaden the topic a little bit, I really like what Palin is doing with her Facebook page lately. From health care, to energy policy, to the stimulus, and other topics, she really seems to be hitting her stride with her Facebook notes. And as we witnessed with her "death panels" remark, she had a significant affect on the debate over ObamaCare.

Back in the 1970's, Ronald Reagan used to give weekly radio addresses where he would discuss the topics of the day. Palin seems to be doing the same now, using her Facebook page - and to great affect. She's leading, and people are noticing.

You go, girl.

Why Is Charles Krauthammer Still So Revered In Conservative Circles?

Why the hell is Charles Krauthammer still so revered in conservative circles, as if he is some voice of detached wisdom that we should all heed? I understand he's written some great stuff in the past, and no doubt he is an intelligent guy, but at some point you really have to start looking at the record and asking yourself if his sterling reputation of a conservative of consequence continues to be deserved. Since January, Krauthammer has advocated a huge gas tax, pimped for Turbo Tax Timmy, thrown town hall protestors under the bus, and now throws Sarah Palin under the bus for her "death panels" remark that accelerated the turning of the health care debate against Obama and the Democrats.

Consider:

- In the January 5, 2009 issue of The Weekly Standard, Krauthammer wrote a cover story where he advocated a huge increase in the federal gas tax, under the premise that it could be offset by a reduction in the FICA tax. This hare-brained idea is not conservative, but it is utterly stupid. First of all, as the run-up in oil prices during the summer of 2008 clearly demonstrated, the demand for gasoline is fairly inelastic, so raising the gas tax to increase prices only accomplishes the removal of more dollars from the wallets of Americans while doing little to reduce demand.

But worse is Krauthammer's suggestion that we could offset an increase in gas taxes with a reduction in FICA taxes. What planet is he living on? Has all his time in the beltway not given him a clue as to how Washington works? Anyone who's observed DC long enough knows what will happen if his idea is pursued - we'll get the gas tax for sure under the premises he proposes, but the reduction in FICA tax will suddently beome "unaffordable" in DC-speak - a proposition that will have a lot of weight behind it when you consider the retiring of the Boomer generation. It's a bait and switch that is far too tempting for Congress, which has an insatiable appetite for taxes. Krauthammer never even addresses this achilles heel in his arguemnt.

Not to mention, Krauthammer repeatedly lumps CO2 in with "pollution" in the article. Note, he doesn't actually say it's a pollutant itself, he just lumps it in with other pollution in a guilt-by-association sleight-of-hand. Does DR. Krauthammer not know that CO2 is essential for life on Earth? Take all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and life on Earth is going to disappear pretty damn quickly. Oh, and photosynthesis isn't just a theory, it's an established fact, and it's a process that is utterly dependent on CO2.

So in short, why does Krauthammer, if he is such a great conservative thinker, play right into the hands of the left wing global warming nutcases and those with a socialist impulse by advocating an idea of higher gas taxes? Doesn't sound very conservative to me.

- Next, we have Krauthammer's take on the confirmation of Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner shortly after Obama's inauguration. If you remember, it came out that Geithner was fudging more than just a bit on his taxes, never mind the fact that he was up for the job of chief tax collector. And What was Krauthammer's reaction? Oh, it's just a "triviality", and those that would oppose Geithner for not paying his taxes are "not serious". Michelle's linked post has numerous other links that cut to several fundamental reasons why opposition to Geithner was a good idea. And let's not forget Geithner's record post-confirmation, which is certainly nothing to be proud of. Krauthammer doesn't seem to mind though.

- Third, with the momentum against ObamaCare beginning to turn into a tidal wave, thanks in large part to protestors at town halls, what does Krauthammer do? He throws them clean under the bus. This is a debate over something that affects the relationship between city and state at the most fundamental level, against an enemy that long ago took their gloves off and started hitting below the belt, and yet Krauthammer wants us to put our gloves back on and play nice. Who is he kidding? Never mind the fact that he's completely and utterly wrong - the passion of the town hall protestors only accelerated the meltdown of support for ObamaCare, which has continued unabated despite Krauthammer's warnings of a backlash. Andy McCarthy took Krauthammer to task here, and with great affect. He gets it.

- And not to be outdone by some hick from Alaska, Krauthammer today snidely takes a shot at Sarah Palin over her death panels remark:

Let's see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling.

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

... before he undermines his own argument here:

So why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling? Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.

It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor (ed: and who puts the pressure on the doctor, Charles? Govt. bureacrats, perhaps?) And when you include it in a health-care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point the patient in a certain direction (ed: no shit, Chuck, so effectively those who decide to push the patient in that direction constitute what?), toward the corner of the sickroom where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release.

Maybe Krauthammer was against death panels before he was for them. Either way, it's clear that he prioritized taking a distancing himself from Palin, never mind the fact that she completely owned the debate on that one - as the senate's hasty removal of end-of-life counseling can attest. And of course, the VA "encourages" the end of life counseling as well.

Of course, Mr. Krauthammer, your column on the topic puts you in the same boat as that noted conservative icon Eugene Robinson, who also slams Palin on the death panel remark, before he essentially agrees that there might be some merit to it:

That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending. It's irresponsible for politicians, such as Sarah Palin, to claim -- outlandishly and falsely -- that there's going to be some kind of "death panel" to decide when to pull the plug on Aunt Sylvia (ed. even though you just justified their concern about a "death panel", Gene!). But it's understandable why people might associate the phrase "health-care reform" with limiting their choices during Aunt Sylvia's final days.

Ok, so the government is not going to have death panels ... it's just going to have groups of people deciding that some people will no longer get health care, which will result in their death. I see. Kind of like with Geithner - he's not a tax cheat, he was just a guy who didn't pay what he was supposed to pay.

So, to sum Krauthammer up in the last 8 months, pro-gas tax, pro-Timmy Geithner, anti-townhall protestors, anti-Sarah Palin, particularly on the "death panels" grenade she lobbed so effectively into the Obamacare debate.

At some point, a person has to stop standing on his past record and start standing on his present record. Following the debate over Krauthammer's remarks in the HotAir Headlines, I see a lot of knee-jerk defense of Dr. K. And if he just had one mulligan here and there, if any of these things were merely isolated incidents, I'd tend to agree with the reverence toward Krauthammer. But these are no longer isolated incidents, this is a trend. And when you see a trend such as this, you have to ask yourself whether Krauthammer is really interested in advancing conservatism in practice, or whether he only cares about it as an abstract theory.

The bottom line is that conservatism has been in a fight for its life since the election of Obama. And in that time, Krauthammer has chosen to advocate a notoriously bad liberal policy in the form of a huge federal gas tax, has given tongue kisses to a tax cheat for head tax collector, while throwing cold water on the protestors that are killing ObamaCare and on Sarah Palin, whose "death panel" remark only further damaged ObamaCare's prospects. If that's the direction he wants to go, that's his perogative ... but should we still consider him an asset to the conservative movement? Count me out of that one.