Lemme guess, his lips are moving ?
Truly a great article; spot on: His favorite phrases for fudging facts:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_says_he_about_to_mislead_NYozaAzCWoW2GSy25dnghL
Let me just be clear .... read the whole thing !
Reminiscent of another great article 3 months ago by Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091703329.html
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Obama: 0 for Copenhagen - A Complete Embarrassment
O's 2nd trip to Copenhagen ended up just like the 1st one (olympics) - a complete failure.
How many US Presidents can make a high profile international trip and get dissed by Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Greenpeace, and the Chinese in the process ? And that's before breakfast !
The more we see of Obama, the more it is clear that this guy is not only grounded in radical beliefs, but his "leadership" skills, especially in international relationships, are non-existent.
How much embarrassment must we endure from this man ?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/obama_does_it_again_xcbUOFFaHFxWRx2QITjBwJ
Today's NY Post editorial writes:
Copenhagen : what the hell was the point?
One would think that Obama had taken a lesson from his last trip to Copenhagen -- when he thought his presence alone would win the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago.
That is, that he would have learned that it is a mistake to publicly commit presidential prestige to an outcome that isn't locked up in advance.
Obviously, not.
So much for two years of work and a supposedly broad international consensus that was to make the Copenhagen conference little more than a formality.
Clearly, yesterday was about squabbling over how much money we'll borrow from the Chinese so that we can give it right back to Beijing and other Third World countries in exchange for their promise to . . . well, that was never clear.
And twice yesterday, Obama was kept waiting in public by China's premier.
This is scary stuff.
Obviously, the rest of the world has taken measure of Barack Obama -- and decided he's a pushover.
On the merits, not unfairly.
--------------------------------
Before I post more links to some great articles, watch Neil Cavuto ... interview w/ man in Polar Bear suit looking for Phil Jones and confronting Al Gore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cfxxt5TwQg
I mean, Hugo Chavez gives a speech to this socialist statist gathering in Copenhagen condemning capitalism and praising socialism ... and gets a STANDING OVATION.
This is where Obama had to drop everything to go ? (of course he did, b/c he is simpatico w/ them).
Yet, even Chavez dissed Obama in Copenhagen (he said he "smelled sulfur" after Obama's speech -- reminiscent of when he called Bush el Diablo at the UN). And so did Greenpeace !
PRICELESS ARTICLE FROM JONAH GOLDBERG: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/wackos_pollute_the_eco_debate_bfMN07qTS6UVqTQUapwnoM
snippets:
As the Copenhagen climate summit comes to a close, it seems fair to say that rarely has a gathering of so many doing so little gotten so much attention.
But Copenhagen does have its uses.
For starters, it reminds us that environmentalism continues to be a cover for uglier agendas. Bolivian President Evo Morales was interviewed by al-Jazeera television while in Copenhagen. "The principal obstacle to combating climate change is capitalism," he explained.
"Until we put an end to capitalism, it will continue to be a big obstacle for life and humanity."
Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe proclaimed in a speech: "When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere, who gasp and sink and eventually die."
Right. That is, unless Mugabe kills them first.
The big name in the anti-capitalism club was, of course, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan national-socialist strongman.
In a typical stemwinder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."
I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.
And then there is Obama, who got repeatedly dissed by Chinese leader Wen Jiabao.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/obama_praises_NuPTfoiIjqtEu92UmDiwaP
The headline to this is "Copenhagen talks end w/ dud of a deal; Obama delusional"
Obama may become known as "the man who killed Copenhagen," said Greenpeace US head Phil Radford, one of many activists to rap the president for the flimsy agreement with India, South Africa, Brazil and China, which thwarted the president throughout the conference.
[Copenhagen] was roundly blasted as a farce from all quarters.
"The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming," said Bill McKibbon of the progressive group 350.org. "It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear."
Friends of the Earth tore into the pact as well. "Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries," the group said in a statement. "This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one.
Obama and his team were prepared to give up hope for a broad deal after hearing that leaders of India, Brazil and other key nations -- along with much of the entire Chinese delegation -- had already left for the airport.
But that wasn't the case.
Instead, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao insultingly skipped a high-level meeting in the morning, leaving Obama and other world leaders negotiating with a lower-level government official.
Wen later attend a meeting with President Lula de Silva of Brazil as well as the leaders of India and South Africa. Obama decided he wanted to go, and was forced to barge into the meeting.
"Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?" the exasperated Obama inquired loudly from the conference-room door, in front of the press and other world leaders who had already gathered.
"We can't get into the room to look at it," explained one of the advance officials. "They're all having a meeting."
There wasn't even a seat for Obama.
"The president walks in and by the time I finally push through I hear the president say, 'There aren't any seats,' " explained one of the officials. "And the president says, 'No, no, don't worry, I'm going to go sit by my friend Lula,' and says, 'Hey, Lula,' " the advance official said.
Obama walked over, moved a chair beside the Brazilian leader and took a seat.
He later tried to put a positive spin on the meeting, saying a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough" had been reached
How many US Presidents can make a high profile international trip and get dissed by Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, Greenpeace, and the Chinese in the process ? And that's before breakfast !
The more we see of Obama, the more it is clear that this guy is not only grounded in radical beliefs, but his "leadership" skills, especially in international relationships, are non-existent.
How much embarrassment must we endure from this man ?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/obama_does_it_again_xcbUOFFaHFxWRx2QITjBwJ
Today's NY Post editorial writes:
Copenhagen : what the hell was the point?
One would think that Obama had taken a lesson from his last trip to Copenhagen -- when he thought his presence alone would win the 2016 Olympic games for Chicago.
That is, that he would have learned that it is a mistake to publicly commit presidential prestige to an outcome that isn't locked up in advance.
Obviously, not.
So much for two years of work and a supposedly broad international consensus that was to make the Copenhagen conference little more than a formality.
Clearly, yesterday was about squabbling over how much money we'll borrow from the Chinese so that we can give it right back to Beijing and other Third World countries in exchange for their promise to . . . well, that was never clear.
And twice yesterday, Obama was kept waiting in public by China's premier.
This is scary stuff.
Obviously, the rest of the world has taken measure of Barack Obama -- and decided he's a pushover.
On the merits, not unfairly.
--------------------------------
Before I post more links to some great articles, watch Neil Cavuto ... interview w/ man in Polar Bear suit looking for Phil Jones and confronting Al Gore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cfxxt5TwQg
I mean, Hugo Chavez gives a speech to this socialist statist gathering in Copenhagen condemning capitalism and praising socialism ... and gets a STANDING OVATION.
This is where Obama had to drop everything to go ? (of course he did, b/c he is simpatico w/ them).
Yet, even Chavez dissed Obama in Copenhagen (he said he "smelled sulfur" after Obama's speech -- reminiscent of when he called Bush el Diablo at the UN). And so did Greenpeace !
PRICELESS ARTICLE FROM JONAH GOLDBERG: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/wackos_pollute_the_eco_debate_bfMN07qTS6UVqTQUapwnoM
snippets:
As the Copenhagen climate summit comes to a close, it seems fair to say that rarely has a gathering of so many doing so little gotten so much attention.
But Copenhagen does have its uses.
For starters, it reminds us that environmentalism continues to be a cover for uglier agendas. Bolivian President Evo Morales was interviewed by al-Jazeera television while in Copenhagen. "The principal obstacle to combating climate change is capitalism," he explained.
"Until we put an end to capitalism, it will continue to be a big obstacle for life and humanity."
Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe proclaimed in a speech: "When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it's we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere, who gasp and sink and eventually die."
Right. That is, unless Mugabe kills them first.
The big name in the anti-capitalism club was, of course, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan national-socialist strongman.
In a typical stemwinder, he belched: "Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species."
I don't know how to say "chutzpah" in Spanish, but you've got to hand it to the leader of the world's No. 5 supplier of oil for bemoaning the system that keeps his regime afloat by buying his product.
And then there is Obama, who got repeatedly dissed by Chinese leader Wen Jiabao.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/obama_praises_NuPTfoiIjqtEu92UmDiwaP
The headline to this is "Copenhagen talks end w/ dud of a deal; Obama delusional"
Obama may become known as "the man who killed Copenhagen," said Greenpeace US head Phil Radford, one of many activists to rap the president for the flimsy agreement with India, South Africa, Brazil and China, which thwarted the president throughout the conference.
[Copenhagen] was roundly blasted as a farce from all quarters.
"The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming," said Bill McKibbon of the progressive group 350.org. "It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear."
Friends of the Earth tore into the pact as well. "Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries," the group said in a statement. "This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one.
Obama and his team were prepared to give up hope for a broad deal after hearing that leaders of India, Brazil and other key nations -- along with much of the entire Chinese delegation -- had already left for the airport.
But that wasn't the case.
Instead, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao insultingly skipped a high-level meeting in the morning, leaving Obama and other world leaders negotiating with a lower-level government official.
Wen later attend a meeting with President Lula de Silva of Brazil as well as the leaders of India and South Africa. Obama decided he wanted to go, and was forced to barge into the meeting.
"Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?" the exasperated Obama inquired loudly from the conference-room door, in front of the press and other world leaders who had already gathered.
"We can't get into the room to look at it," explained one of the advance officials. "They're all having a meeting."
There wasn't even a seat for Obama.
"The president walks in and by the time I finally push through I hear the president say, 'There aren't any seats,' " explained one of the officials. "And the president says, 'No, no, don't worry, I'm going to go sit by my friend Lula,' and says, 'Hey, Lula,' " the advance official said.
Obama walked over, moved a chair beside the Brazilian leader and took a seat.
He later tried to put a positive spin on the meeting, saying a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough" had been reached
The ObamaCare Train Wreck Keeps A Rollin ... Reid thinks he has 60 votes
Thank you Ben Nelson D-Neb (you stupid a-hole). In Congress, accepting bribes are perfectly legal.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid are hell bent on this government controlled freak show that will wreck the economy; wreck health care and wreak havoc on us already over-taxed folks.
Nelson Caved for This? [Douglas Holtz-Eakin]
I’m sitting here digesting the news of Ben Nelson’s caving to the pressure and the Dems passing the Reid bill. I don’t get it. Honestly. I realize that passing a health care bill has become a political imperative. But I don’t understand why this bill meets the need.
To begin, it is extremely unpopular. Sixty four percent of Americans don’t think it meets their priorities for reform. And it will be even more unpopular in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 — years in which the harsh medicine of higher taxes and regulatory takeover will produce sharp premium increases and less satisfactory care. Only in 2014 does the massive redistribution start, and Dems might get some relief from their purchased constituencies.
On top of that, the schedule is now such that they will have to go back to the House in early 2010 and deal with a likely revolt against the absence of a “public plan” and the tax on “Cadillac” plans. So, just at the time when Obama is going to need Dems to close ranks and support him on Afghanistan, the ranks will be splitting. Why pass a bill that will create more problems for the divided party?
Finally, it is now clear that the pressure is rising over the massive spending and deficits. Obama will clearly want to devote substantial rhetorical effort on this front in the State of the Union speech, and put out a budget that has at least cosmetic fiscal courage. To do this at the same time he might be signing a budget-busting $2.5 trillion health-spending bill will make a mockery of the effort.
So, count me disappointed that we didn’t get real reform. But count me baffled as to why we got this.
'reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care' [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
More Kristol:
CBO is explaining that the legislation's claim to fiscal responsibility requires cutting in half the rate of growth of per capita Medicare spending. And, according to CBO, absent magical greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care, accomplishing those fiscal goals might well require reducing access to health care and/or diminishing the quality of health care. So less access and lower quality is a very real possible consequence of this legislation. This is a point critics of the bill cannot allow to be lost in all the hubbub.
I'll Have A Blue Dog Christmas Without You [Mark Steyn]
Kathryn, re your Facebook friend who asks, "Can we officially retire the phrases 'blue dog' democrats and 'pro life' democrats? Because there is no such thing:"
As I wrote back in the summer, "Put not your trust in Blue Dog Democrats." It was folly to bet the Republic on the likes of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and other "moderates" who are, by definition, trimmers and accommodationists.
By contrast, Barney Frank and the more ambitious Dems are thinking long-term. And, if it's a choice between getting government health care or keeping Ben Nelson, it's no contest.
Not to keep quoting myself ad nauseam, but as I said to Hugh Hewitt a couple of months back:
I think the administration is willing to take the hit. In other words, to get health care, they would be willing to reduce their majority, and perhaps even lose their majority in the House and the Senate, because they know it’s a game changer. Now to sell that to individual Senators and Congressmen, you’ve got to have something up your sleeve for them... There are strange elements in play here. But they’ve factored into the whole business a potential, I think, a potential significant loss in the year 2010, in next year’s elections.
I've been saying for a year now, in NR and NRO, that the object for savvy Dems is to get this thing passed in whatever form because, once you do, there's no going back.
Kim Strassel in yesterday's Journal gets it:
So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party—the Barney Franks, the David Obeys—are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe.
Just so. And that's worth whatever hit they have to take in 2010. Every time I make the point, someone says, oh, Jim Webb this or Byron Dorgan that, or have you see Harry Reid's numbers in Nevada? Oh, please. We've just seen what happens when you make Ben Nelson your Maginot Line. The Dems are thinking strategically; the Republicans are all tactics.
In a Representative Democracy, You Don't Give Up [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
You fight. Just in the last minute, Tom Price's office said that to me.
And Bill Kristol wrote it, reminding that:
Pyrrhus's victory became Pyrrhic because the victorious party lost many of its supporters—but also because the opposition didn't abate in courage, was able to gain new recruits, and had the force and resolution to go on.
It's understandable to be disappointed and dismayed, but really, they've had the numbers, this should have happened long ago. But people are not happy about what's happening, and they should have something to say about what's transpiring as they try to live their lives.
Buying the Left, Too [Stephen Spruiell]
Earlier this week, Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders expressed his disappointment with the Senate bill, particularly its lack of a government-run insurance plan, and went so far as to say, "As of this point I am not voting for the bill." Now Sanders appears to be back in the fold.
If you're wondering how Reid secured his vote (I was), here's how:
$10 Billion More for Community Health Centers will Revolutionize Care WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.
The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
It's enough for Sanders, but will it be enough for the 60-plus House progressives who promised not to vote for a health-care bill that lacked a public option?
Budget Buster [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Jim Capretta on Reid's "compromise."
NRLC [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
has an even longer takedown of what Nelson signed onto.And this, from Boehner's office:
Fixed it is not. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan. Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions. ... the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions. The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.
Obama, Pelosi and Reid are hell bent on this government controlled freak show that will wreck the economy; wreck health care and wreak havoc on us already over-taxed folks.
Nelson Caved for This? [Douglas Holtz-Eakin]
I’m sitting here digesting the news of Ben Nelson’s caving to the pressure and the Dems passing the Reid bill. I don’t get it. Honestly. I realize that passing a health care bill has become a political imperative. But I don’t understand why this bill meets the need.
To begin, it is extremely unpopular. Sixty four percent of Americans don’t think it meets their priorities for reform. And it will be even more unpopular in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 — years in which the harsh medicine of higher taxes and regulatory takeover will produce sharp premium increases and less satisfactory care. Only in 2014 does the massive redistribution start, and Dems might get some relief from their purchased constituencies.
On top of that, the schedule is now such that they will have to go back to the House in early 2010 and deal with a likely revolt against the absence of a “public plan” and the tax on “Cadillac” plans. So, just at the time when Obama is going to need Dems to close ranks and support him on Afghanistan, the ranks will be splitting. Why pass a bill that will create more problems for the divided party?
Finally, it is now clear that the pressure is rising over the massive spending and deficits. Obama will clearly want to devote substantial rhetorical effort on this front in the State of the Union speech, and put out a budget that has at least cosmetic fiscal courage. To do this at the same time he might be signing a budget-busting $2.5 trillion health-spending bill will make a mockery of the effort.
So, count me disappointed that we didn’t get real reform. But count me baffled as to why we got this.
'reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care' [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
More Kristol:
CBO is explaining that the legislation's claim to fiscal responsibility requires cutting in half the rate of growth of per capita Medicare spending. And, according to CBO, absent magical greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care, accomplishing those fiscal goals might well require reducing access to health care and/or diminishing the quality of health care. So less access and lower quality is a very real possible consequence of this legislation. This is a point critics of the bill cannot allow to be lost in all the hubbub.
I'll Have A Blue Dog Christmas Without You [Mark Steyn]
Kathryn, re your Facebook friend who asks, "Can we officially retire the phrases 'blue dog' democrats and 'pro life' democrats? Because there is no such thing:"
As I wrote back in the summer, "Put not your trust in Blue Dog Democrats." It was folly to bet the Republic on the likes of Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and other "moderates" who are, by definition, trimmers and accommodationists.
By contrast, Barney Frank and the more ambitious Dems are thinking long-term. And, if it's a choice between getting government health care or keeping Ben Nelson, it's no contest.
Not to keep quoting myself ad nauseam, but as I said to Hugh Hewitt a couple of months back:
I think the administration is willing to take the hit. In other words, to get health care, they would be willing to reduce their majority, and perhaps even lose their majority in the House and the Senate, because they know it’s a game changer. Now to sell that to individual Senators and Congressmen, you’ve got to have something up your sleeve for them... There are strange elements in play here. But they’ve factored into the whole business a potential, I think, a potential significant loss in the year 2010, in next year’s elections.
I've been saying for a year now, in NR and NRO, that the object for savvy Dems is to get this thing passed in whatever form because, once you do, there's no going back.
Kim Strassel in yesterday's Journal gets it:
So why the stubborn insistence on passing health reform? Think big. The liberal wing of the party—the Barney Franks, the David Obeys—are focused beyond November 2010, to the long-term political prize. They want a health-care program that inevitably leads to a value-added tax and a permanent welfare state. Big government then becomes fact, and another Ronald Reagan becomes impossible. See Continental Europe.
Just so. And that's worth whatever hit they have to take in 2010. Every time I make the point, someone says, oh, Jim Webb this or Byron Dorgan that, or have you see Harry Reid's numbers in Nevada? Oh, please. We've just seen what happens when you make Ben Nelson your Maginot Line. The Dems are thinking strategically; the Republicans are all tactics.
In a Representative Democracy, You Don't Give Up [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
You fight. Just in the last minute, Tom Price's office said that to me.
And Bill Kristol wrote it, reminding that:
Pyrrhus's victory became Pyrrhic because the victorious party lost many of its supporters—but also because the opposition didn't abate in courage, was able to gain new recruits, and had the force and resolution to go on.
It's understandable to be disappointed and dismayed, but really, they've had the numbers, this should have happened long ago. But people are not happy about what's happening, and they should have something to say about what's transpiring as they try to live their lives.
Buying the Left, Too [Stephen Spruiell]
Earlier this week, Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders expressed his disappointment with the Senate bill, particularly its lack of a government-run insurance plan, and went so far as to say, "As of this point I am not voting for the bill." Now Sanders appears to be back in the fold.
If you're wondering how Reid secured his vote (I was), here's how:
$10 Billion More for Community Health Centers will Revolutionize Care WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.
The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
It's enough for Sanders, but will it be enough for the 60-plus House progressives who promised not to vote for a health-care bill that lacked a public option?
Budget Buster [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Jim Capretta on Reid's "compromise."
NRLC [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
has an even longer takedown of what Nelson signed onto.And this, from Boehner's office:
Fixed it is not. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan. Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions. ... the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions. The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Obama goes to Copenhagen - he must like the vibe
The President Has Arrived in Copenhagen [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Perhaps while there he can sharpen his killing-capitalism skills. The Australian reports on the Hugo Chavez summit speech:
President Chavez brought the house down.When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
A standing ovation. Just thought you'd like to know. After all, this isn't just some activist with nutty ideas at a specialized, quirky side rally. It's the president of Venezuela at a global summit our president is now attending.
Following the Script [Iain Murray]
What a surprise...an agreement has been reached at Hopenchangen at the 11th hour and, guess what? It's historic!!!
Andy Revkin has the administration's description:
Today, following a multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma a meaningful agreement was reached. Its not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but its an important first step.
We entered this negotiation at a time when there were significant differences between countries. Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of two degrees celsius and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communicatios, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.
No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress.
We thank the emerging economies for their voluntary actions and especially appreciate the work and leadership of the europeans in this effort.
Emphases added. The future of climate change summits is assured.
BTW, here's what I said would happen on Dec. 30, 2008.
Churchillian on the Climate [Rich Lowry]
What happened to Obama's famous nuance? His subtlety? His Burkean grace notes? His Niebuhrian distrust of glib certitudes? None were on display today in Copenhagen, where he gave a stirring call to arms to fight climate change—on the seas and oceans and on the beaches, and in the fields and in the streets, as it were. Obama wanted "bold and decisive" action, to fight a "grave and growing" danger. He was impatient with mere talk—he wanted action. He used the word "must" several times and in contrast to his warnings to our enemies, actually seemed to mean it. So where did all of Obama's famous complexity go? He saves that mostly for things he's ambivalent or doesn't care much about (usually in the area of national security) or for occasions when he needs to obfuscate (the Philadelphia race speech). When it's something that truly moves him—like massive new spending programs, or a sprawling, government-heavy revamp of health care, or new government intrusion into every aspect of the economy in the name of fighting climate change—then he's positively Churchillian.
Krauthammer's Take From last night's Fox News All-Stars.
On the results of the Copenhagen climate-change summit:
I think Copenhagen will go the way of Kyoto, and that means nothing of importance will come out for a simple reason, the American people aren't stupid — as they said in 1999, by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate to the Clinton administration, they are saying to the Obama administration, and it's listening.
The American people will not accept an agreement where we have serious cuts in carbon emissions imposed on the United States, which will mean a serious constriction of the U.S. economy, a lowering of our standard of living, if the Chinese (who are the largest CO2 polluters on the planet) and the Indians ... do not accept limits, as they will not, because the result of that is (a) there is no effect on warming — whatever coal plant America shuts down, the Chinese and Indians are going to open [another] and so there will be no effect on the climate – and (b) it will, in effect, be a huge transfer of wealth and jobs out of the West, out of the American economy, into China and India.
Adding on to that is the Clinton proposal of a fund of $100 billion a year of which America will ultimately contribute probably a third — it always does in these international agreements — from our treasury, our money from taxpayers, directly into the treasuries of the poorer countries, the majority of whom are kleptocracies, and some of whom like China and India are lenders.
It makes absolutely no sense, and Americans are simply not going to accept that, which is why nothing of importance will we sign out there. . . .
It's the same story that happened in the late '90s. If the Chinese and Indians and the others who are developing will not match our cuts, it makes no sense economically or even scientifically — [it] will have no effect on the climate, even if you accept all of the climate science and global warming as a reality.
So it has no [climactic] effect and it is [just] a transfer of wealth. It will never be accepted.
And the Chinese were clear today — they are not interested in arresting their own development on which the legitimacy of the regime depends. It is a dictatorship. It depends on a prosperous nation to stay in power. It is not going to jeopardize that in the name of the speculative warming claims, and if it doesn't, nothing is going to happen.
Perhaps while there he can sharpen his killing-capitalism skills. The Australian reports on the Hugo Chavez summit speech:
President Chavez brought the house down.When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
A standing ovation. Just thought you'd like to know. After all, this isn't just some activist with nutty ideas at a specialized, quirky side rally. It's the president of Venezuela at a global summit our president is now attending.
Following the Script [Iain Murray]
What a surprise...an agreement has been reached at Hopenchangen at the 11th hour and, guess what? It's historic!!!
Andy Revkin has the administration's description:
Today, following a multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma a meaningful agreement was reached. Its not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but its an important first step.
We entered this negotiation at a time when there were significant differences between countries. Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of two degrees celsius and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communicatios, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.
No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress.
We thank the emerging economies for their voluntary actions and especially appreciate the work and leadership of the europeans in this effort.
Emphases added. The future of climate change summits is assured.
BTW, here's what I said would happen on Dec. 30, 2008.
Churchillian on the Climate [Rich Lowry]
What happened to Obama's famous nuance? His subtlety? His Burkean grace notes? His Niebuhrian distrust of glib certitudes? None were on display today in Copenhagen, where he gave a stirring call to arms to fight climate change—on the seas and oceans and on the beaches, and in the fields and in the streets, as it were. Obama wanted "bold and decisive" action, to fight a "grave and growing" danger. He was impatient with mere talk—he wanted action. He used the word "must" several times and in contrast to his warnings to our enemies, actually seemed to mean it. So where did all of Obama's famous complexity go? He saves that mostly for things he's ambivalent or doesn't care much about (usually in the area of national security) or for occasions when he needs to obfuscate (the Philadelphia race speech). When it's something that truly moves him—like massive new spending programs, or a sprawling, government-heavy revamp of health care, or new government intrusion into every aspect of the economy in the name of fighting climate change—then he's positively Churchillian.
Krauthammer's Take From last night's Fox News All-Stars.
On the results of the Copenhagen climate-change summit:
I think Copenhagen will go the way of Kyoto, and that means nothing of importance will come out for a simple reason, the American people aren't stupid — as they said in 1999, by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate to the Clinton administration, they are saying to the Obama administration, and it's listening.
The American people will not accept an agreement where we have serious cuts in carbon emissions imposed on the United States, which will mean a serious constriction of the U.S. economy, a lowering of our standard of living, if the Chinese (who are the largest CO2 polluters on the planet) and the Indians ... do not accept limits, as they will not, because the result of that is (a) there is no effect on warming — whatever coal plant America shuts down, the Chinese and Indians are going to open [another] and so there will be no effect on the climate – and (b) it will, in effect, be a huge transfer of wealth and jobs out of the West, out of the American economy, into China and India.
Adding on to that is the Clinton proposal of a fund of $100 billion a year of which America will ultimately contribute probably a third — it always does in these international agreements — from our treasury, our money from taxpayers, directly into the treasuries of the poorer countries, the majority of whom are kleptocracies, and some of whom like China and India are lenders.
It makes absolutely no sense, and Americans are simply not going to accept that, which is why nothing of importance will we sign out there. . . .
It's the same story that happened in the late '90s. If the Chinese and Indians and the others who are developing will not match our cuts, it makes no sense economically or even scientifically — [it] will have no effect on the climate, even if you accept all of the climate science and global warming as a reality.
So it has no [climactic] effect and it is [just] a transfer of wealth. It will never be accepted.
And the Chinese were clear today — they are not interested in arresting their own development on which the legitimacy of the regime depends. It is a dictatorship. It depends on a prosperous nation to stay in power. It is not going to jeopardize that in the name of the speculative warming claims, and if it doesn't, nothing is going to happen.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Just another day in ObamaWorld: ObamaCare; Radical Appointments and Immigration
Violation of Senate Rules this Afternoon [Veronique de Rugy]
Today Sen. Tom Coburn forced the reading of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s entire 767-page amendment to provide single-payer health care. This process would have taken some twelve hours at least. The Senate rule is that once the clerk starts reading the bill, no senator can stop the reading of that bill unless every senator agrees.
Somehow, though, the chair allowed Bernie Sanders to interrupt the reading and withdraw his amendment, which, under the rules, he should not have been allowed to do without unanimous consent. The reason the parliamentarian allowed the interruption was that he was relying on a similar incident in 1982 when the chair wrongly allowed an amendment to be withdrawn. Yet, as we know, two wrongs have never made a right.
This is a huge boon to Democrats who did not relish spending an entire day (or possibly two) reading the Sanders amendment to the American people.
The real story here, this miscarriage of justice in the Senate may just end up helping the Democrats squeeze passage of the health-care-reform bill before Christmas.
Read more here and here.
You Can't Make It Up — Or Si, Se Puede! [Andy McCarthy]
The White House has announced that Mari Del Carmen Aponte will be nominated by the president to become the U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. Aponte is a former director of the radical Mexican organization La Raza and of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education fund. (More from Judicial Watch, here.)
This is the second time she's been proposed for an ambassadorship. The first didn't go so well. President Clinton nominated her to be ambassador to the Dominican Republic but, as detailed on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, it turned out that she had "co-habited" with an agent of the Cuban intelligence service. In fact, and a confidential U.S. intelligence memo alleged that she had been recruited to become a Cuban spy in her own right. The revelations caused her nomination to be quietly withdrawn . . . whereupon she reportedly refused to answer questions from the FBI (saying that since she was no longer seeking an executive branch slot, she no longer needed to cooperate in a background security check). Now, despite that debacle, and heedless of the controversies stoked by Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, et al., Obama wants to press ahead with Aponte.
Maybe you don't buy my theory that the president is an Alinskyite radical, but I still think annointing him a neocon based on his Oslo performance may be a tad premature.
The Persecution of Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Hans A. von Spakovsky]
The Washington Times has a good editorial today about the “ideological vendetta” being waged by the Holder Justice Department against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. The vendetta was prompted by Arpaio’s participation in the 287(g) program, which allows local police to help enforce our immigration laws by detaining illegal aliens. This is a program the Left wants ended, and since they have not been able to persuade Congress to get rid of the authorizing legislation, they are prodding the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to do it for them. I wrote about this investigation for National Review this past summer, pointing out the unethical and unprofessional behavior by the lead lawyer in the Civil Rights Division who is (mis)conducting this abusive investigation. It should be no surprise to anyone that there is no sign that the Inspector General or the Office of Professional Responsibility is looking into these ethical violations, and that the lawyer has not been removed from the case.
Now the Washington Times points out that Arpaio is being sued by the Civil Rights Division’s allies in the ACLU (the number-two lawyer at the division is a former ACLU lawyer) for setting up an anonymous telephone tip line for immigration violations, purportedly because it will generate “false, inaccurate and racially motivated reports.” Interestingly, the division has set up its own anonymous tip line to solicit complaints from illegal immigrants about Arpaio. It’s a good thing that this tip line will not generate any “false, inaccurate and racially motivated” calls.This is a real sign of the desperation by the Civil Rights Division. They have been harassing Arpaio for the past year and even generated a DHS audit of him (despite having had no complaints that he was not complying with the rules of the 287(g) program), trying to scrape up enough evidence to justify a civil-rights lawsuit against him. That effort appears to have come up short — necessitating an anonymous tip line nine months after the witch-hunt was initiated. As the Washington Times correctly points out, it seems pretty clear that this is intended to “find a crime to pin” on Arpaio.
Today Sen. Tom Coburn forced the reading of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s entire 767-page amendment to provide single-payer health care. This process would have taken some twelve hours at least. The Senate rule is that once the clerk starts reading the bill, no senator can stop the reading of that bill unless every senator agrees.
Somehow, though, the chair allowed Bernie Sanders to interrupt the reading and withdraw his amendment, which, under the rules, he should not have been allowed to do without unanimous consent. The reason the parliamentarian allowed the interruption was that he was relying on a similar incident in 1982 when the chair wrongly allowed an amendment to be withdrawn. Yet, as we know, two wrongs have never made a right.
This is a huge boon to Democrats who did not relish spending an entire day (or possibly two) reading the Sanders amendment to the American people.
The real story here, this miscarriage of justice in the Senate may just end up helping the Democrats squeeze passage of the health-care-reform bill before Christmas.
Read more here and here.
You Can't Make It Up — Or Si, Se Puede! [Andy McCarthy]
The White House has announced that Mari Del Carmen Aponte will be nominated by the president to become the U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. Aponte is a former director of the radical Mexican organization La Raza and of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education fund. (More from Judicial Watch, here.)
This is the second time she's been proposed for an ambassadorship. The first didn't go so well. President Clinton nominated her to be ambassador to the Dominican Republic but, as detailed on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government, it turned out that she had "co-habited" with an agent of the Cuban intelligence service. In fact, and a confidential U.S. intelligence memo alleged that she had been recruited to become a Cuban spy in her own right. The revelations caused her nomination to be quietly withdrawn . . . whereupon she reportedly refused to answer questions from the FBI (saying that since she was no longer seeking an executive branch slot, she no longer needed to cooperate in a background security check). Now, despite that debacle, and heedless of the controversies stoked by Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, et al., Obama wants to press ahead with Aponte.
Maybe you don't buy my theory that the president is an Alinskyite radical, but I still think annointing him a neocon based on his Oslo performance may be a tad premature.
The Persecution of Sheriff Joe Arpaio [Hans A. von Spakovsky]
The Washington Times has a good editorial today about the “ideological vendetta” being waged by the Holder Justice Department against Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona. The vendetta was prompted by Arpaio’s participation in the 287(g) program, which allows local police to help enforce our immigration laws by detaining illegal aliens. This is a program the Left wants ended, and since they have not been able to persuade Congress to get rid of the authorizing legislation, they are prodding the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to do it for them. I wrote about this investigation for National Review this past summer, pointing out the unethical and unprofessional behavior by the lead lawyer in the Civil Rights Division who is (mis)conducting this abusive investigation. It should be no surprise to anyone that there is no sign that the Inspector General or the Office of Professional Responsibility is looking into these ethical violations, and that the lawyer has not been removed from the case.
Now the Washington Times points out that Arpaio is being sued by the Civil Rights Division’s allies in the ACLU (the number-two lawyer at the division is a former ACLU lawyer) for setting up an anonymous telephone tip line for immigration violations, purportedly because it will generate “false, inaccurate and racially motivated reports.” Interestingly, the division has set up its own anonymous tip line to solicit complaints from illegal immigrants about Arpaio. It’s a good thing that this tip line will not generate any “false, inaccurate and racially motivated” calls.This is a real sign of the desperation by the Civil Rights Division. They have been harassing Arpaio for the past year and even generated a DHS audit of him (despite having had no complaints that he was not complying with the rules of the 287(g) program), trying to scrape up enough evidence to justify a civil-rights lawsuit against him. That effort appears to have come up short — necessitating an anonymous tip line nine months after the witch-hunt was initiated. As the Washington Times correctly points out, it seems pretty clear that this is intended to “find a crime to pin” on Arpaio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
