Snark of the Day: Nancy Pelosi

“There are a number of things [Barack Obama] was for on the campaign trail.”

Nancy Pelosi, via Patrick O’Connor and Glenn Thrush,  Politico.

Welcome one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the sphere… The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• KENNEDY SENATE SEAT TO A REPUBLICAN?  MAYBE….Scott Rasmussen and his people are reporting that State Attorney General Martha Coakley is holding  a mere nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy. With 7% undecided, this is big.  Add to that the recent movement trends and this is huge for the Republicans. Not knowing Brown, however, I wonder how big it is for Conservatives. He’s in the People’s Republic of  Massachusetts…. the state that put Kennedy and  and Kerry on the map. How conservative can he be?  Then again, as Reynolds points out,support for Brown will speak louder than support for the RNC, who has essentially ignored Brown.  Must be an indication he’s too far right for the RNC’s taste. A good a reason to support Brown as I can think of.
• SO MUCH FOR TRANSPARENCY: Remember when ‘transparency’ in government was all the rage? Now that the Democrats are having trouble ramming their helathcare takeover through, not so much.
• THE BEST INDICATION OBAMA HAS NO ANSWER FOR TERRORISTS:Victor Davis Hanson muses:
  

  “I don’t think anyone knows quite what this administration’s anti-terrorism policy is.”

  Meanwhile, Jen Rubin points out the rather wide spread of talking points…. a number of which are in disagreement with the other talking points…. saying also:

  

  Jenifer Rubin

  The Obama spinners who have descended on radio- and cable-news shows seem conflicted. They dare not defend the president’s shabby handling of the incident. The more candid of them concede he is “struggling to find the right tone,” but they plead that he’s really being treated oh so unfairly by all of these second-guessers and partisans who insist on finding out what went wrong. So the Obama supporters retreat to Napolitano-like talking points: no system is perfect, we are doing everything we can, and we have to learn to live with the inevitability of one of these bombers succeeding. (Just not on a flight with them or their loved ones, I suppose.)

  In looking at the increasing number of conflicting talking points being issued by the White House these days, it’s become nearly impossible to ignore the idea that the reason these people are so conflicted, is because they haven’t a bloody clue what they’re doing.  They know full well that there’s no excuse for the handling of our national security as implemented by the Obama White House. Another indication of their real problem is when they start offering the rationalizations offered by the Bush White House after 9/11…. “No smoking Gun”, for example. And even that comparison ignores their history of the situation;  With Bush at least there was little history of a concerted effort on the part of al Quieda to attack us domestically.  (Arguably, WTC 1 might have been considered a fluke, not a pattern. Once 9/11 happened, we had a pattern… one that Obama now seems bent on ignoring for political reasons, as we discussed yesterday.  Past that, what is there to say?

• OIL FIELDS IN GREENLAND TO COME ONLINE THIS SUMMER: So says Popular Mechanics. Once that happens, watch the price of crude drop like a stone.
• THE COLD BEATS ON: More headlines from Drudge:
  

  Winter Could Be Worst in 25 Years for USA...
  CHILL MAP...
  3 Deaths Due To Cold in Memphis...
  PAPER: GAS SUPPLIES RUNNING OUT IN UK...
  Elderly burn books for warmth?
  Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
  Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
  Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
  Historic ice build-up shuts down NJ nuclear power plant...
  Midwest Sees Near-Record Lows, Snow By The Foot...
  Miami shivers from coldest weather in decade...

  I blame Global Warming.

The commentary that sent the libtards aghast, video

Reax La Shawn Barber:

First, that “many high-profile Christians have had damaging sex scandals” doesn’t negate or contradict Christ’s call to repent of our sins, to confess faith in his finished work on the cross to blot out sin, and to obey his commands. Christians are still sinners, living in fallen bodies in a fallen world, and our behavior doesn’t absolve unbelievers of their call to believe.

Yes, I cringe every time I hear or read about people, high-profile or otherwise, who say they’re Christians and yet do the most shameful things. In fact, I’m ashamed of myself for the “un-Christian” things I do, even though I know, in my bones, I am forgiven.

More, Anchorcss:

I am sure if Brit Hume had but opined t hat Jesus would have  supported Obamacare, asses like Steve Benen would have had no problem with Hume expressing a religious opinion.    Alas Hume expressed a belief that not all religions are the same.   Such is life.

The difference is that the Bush administration wasn’t willing to play Russian roulette with Americans lives or hope that detainees would eventually change their minds and co-operate. The Obama administration is. And that should be deeply disturbing to all of us.

Jennifer Rubin, Commentary.

Welcome, one and all to the most intense nightly read anywhere on the sphere…. The BitsBlog Nightly Ramble

• JOHN HAWKINS IS AT IT AGAIN: This time, it’s in the form of the 40 most obnoxious quotes of 2009. A few free samples:
  

  29) I write a lot of songs that could be interpreted as big patriotic songs, but in reality they’re questioning the direction the country is going. After every song in Boston, 20,000 people were going, ‘USA, USA.’ I thought, man. I almost asked them to stop, stop doing that. I don’t like it. I don’t like hearing that chant. — John Cougar Mellencamp

  28) Do you remember tea baggers? It was just so much easier when we could just call them racists. I just don’t know why we can’t call them racists, or functionally retarded adults. The functionally retarded adults, the racists – with their cries of, ‘I want my country back. You know what they’re really saying is, ‘I want my white guy back.’ They apparently had no problem at all for the last eight years of habeas corpus being suspended, the Constitution being [expletive] on, illegal surveillance, lied to on a war or two, two stolen elections – yes, the John Kerry one was stolen too. That’s not tin-foil hat time. That’s just…” — Janeane Garofalo

  19) Fox News and their Republican collaborators are the enemy of America. They’re the enemy of anybody who cares about health care, the enemy of anybody who cares about educating their children, the enemy of anybody who wants energy independence or anything good for this country. And certainly the enemy of peace, there’s no doubt about that. — Alan Grayson

  7) Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away. That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq. There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda. —Congressman Maurice Hinchey

  The one with Mellencamp I find particularly annoying, if only because unlike most liberals, the guy actually has some talent about him.I like a lot of his stuff. Too bad a brain and a heart didn’t come with the talent.

• THINGS I FOUND WHILE LOOKING UP SOMETHING ELSE: A collection of funny signs…. both intentional and uninentional can be found in a huge thread at flagerchat.com I almost didn’t get my backups done last night because of it.
• JOHN KERRY AND IRAN: I see where John Kerry has been denied access to Iran by the Iranian Government… a trip supposedly approved of by the White House. Of course, now that the trip has been denied access to that country, the White House is denying that such a trip was ever planned. Follows almst exactly the rule: If at first you don’t succeed, expend all your effort on denying you ever attempted it. The only really troublesome aspect about all of this, is why Iran would deny carry access to the place to begin with.  I’d think having a useful idiot like John Kerry around, would be helpful.

• SOCIALISM’S SUCCESS STORIES: In another huge success story for socialism Crazy Uncle Hugo has the entire nation of Venezuela starting the year out right; with electricity rationing. I tell you… if there were a brain in the whole of Venezuela, there is at least one person there, questioning the sanity anyone supporting socialism of course, it, because it’s getting to that here in the states. And about that…..

• WE DISAPPROVE: America has seen the changes and has decided that isn’t what they wanted after all. The Washington Examiner opines:
  

  What a difference one year makes. Liberals may be forgiven for looking at the latest public opinion surveys and wondering if they somehow stumbled into the Valley of Death instead of Obama’s promised paradise. The president remains somewhat popular personally, but, as Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard wrote recently, “Obama’s domestic program is exceedingly unpopular. The public disapproves of the president’s bailouts, stimulus, health care reform, and cap and trade policies, not to mention his decision to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay.” That Continetti was perhaps too kind is seen in this stunning fact: When George W. Bush returned, bloodied and bruised, to his Texas home after eight years in the White House, 43 percent of Americans surveyed by Scott Rasmussen “strongly disapproved” of the job he had done. Today, after less than a year in office, 46 percent express the same intense level of opposition to Obama.But it’s not just Obama who has generated a massive shift, particularly among independents, against what the Pew Research Center’s Andrew Kohut calls “activist government.” Only a fourth of all Americans approve of the direction Obama and Congress are taking the country, according to a Gallup survey. A similarly dismal proportion approve of the job being done by Congress under the leadership of Reid and Pelosi. Nearly three-fourths of those surveyed prefer that Congress do nothing to reform health care rather than take final action on either the Senate or House versions of Obamacare. And 79 percent of Americans view government corruption as the most important issue facing the country. That can’t be encouraging to a president who learned his politics the “Chicago Way.”

  I told you this was going to happen.  I said it repeatedly last November that this was precisely what was going to happen.Once reality caught up with the thing, there was no place else for it to go.  As I have been saying for the last couple of weeks now, it’s going to be a very rough three years .  It’s only going to get slightly easier if the Republicans take both houses of Congress as I suggest they probably will. The problem there, of course, is that the republicans have been thinking too much like democrats the last twenty years or so.  They’ve forgotten Reagan altogether. for the meanwhile, the Republicans are are show-in for the next couple of cycles. they will benefit greatly from Obama having united the nation against liberalism.  Not exactly the Obama advertised program.

• CLIMATEGATE ECHOES: Neil Frank writing an Op-Ed in the Houston Chronicle over the weekend
  

  The revelation of Climate­gate occurs at a time when the accuracy of the climate models is being seriously questioned. Over the last decade Earth’s temperature has not warmed, yet every model (there are many) predicted a significant increase in global temperatures for that time period. If the climate models cannot get it right for the past 10 years, why should we trust them for the next century?

  Exactly so, and we said as much here, both David and myself and Art as well, repeatedly.  At some point, however, we’re going to have to get over this notion that somebody managed to hack into the mail servers at the CRU. It’s my opinion, that those mails were distributed by somebody who had access to them legally.  Barring a shred evidence being produced to the contrary, I will continue to believe so.  That makes far more sense to me, given the level of lies going on here.  It’s my take, that somebody’s conscience caught up with them.

• HOW BAD IS IT? How far off are those predictions of global warming?  Here’s a few examples culled from Drudge’s headlines this morning
  

  Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States...
  CHILL MAP...
  Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
  Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
  Peru's mountain people 'face extinction because of cold conditions'...
  Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
  World copes with Arctic weather...

  The evidence is in, and it strongly suggests that we’ve been lied to. You’ll pardon me, I ahve more evidence of Global Warming to shovel out of my driveway…. about a foot of it.

• NIGERIA COMPLAINING… WHO CARES? So Nigeria is now complaining about the new security measures for passengers flying to and from the United States, because those security measures are applied to only fourteen countries in the world, including Nigeria.  They call it discriminatory.  I call a common sense.  And who in the blank cares about what Nigeria has to say anyway? Forgive me, but after putting up with charges of “discrimination” all my life, for anything that ran the fall of what one group or another wanted, I’m getting a little tired of it.  I must say, though, that this is probably the most egregious use of the phrase I’ve ever seen.  And by the way, some of you may recall that I spoke to this point about Nigeria last week. The  ANd about that attack….
• A TWIST OF WORDS: Boortz makes an interesting point:
  

  Political correctness liberal’s intense reluctance to ever label anything as “terrorism” or to label someone as a “Muslim terrorist” is going to get some people killed. There’s an enemy out there. Refusing to recognize and identify the enemy for what and who it is only weakens us and strengthens those who want to kill us. To some extent you have Janet Napolitano to thank for that. Take a look at this interview she did with a German magazine. THIS is the woman in charge of our Department of Homeland Security:

  SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

  NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

  Well .. how prepared were we for some Islamic terrorist boarding an American aircraft with a bomb? Not prepared at all. Napolitano’s approach is clearly working brilliantly. And then came the moment we all savored. This Muslim tries to kill 270 people. Passengers stop him. The flight crew takes care of him until the plane lands in Detroit. The news gets out … Americans are anxious … and here comes our amazingly capable Homeland Security Director to speak to the American people … and what does she say? How about “One thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked.”

  WTH? The system worked? We have 270 people alive today not because the system worked … but because the bomb didn’t. The Obama crowd is trying to put the best light on Janet’s absurdity by saying she was talking about the system in place to arrest someone AFTER they’ve tried to kill a bunch of people. Know what? Maybe I’m wrong, but I think that most Americans think that a system that “works” is a system that would stop this Islamic rat-bastard BEFORE he tries to blow up a plane .. not after.

  The point that really laptop that me from this passage is this.  You’ll recall, perhaps, that I raised a stink about comments from Steve Benen over the weekend. I’d like you to reread his comments, specifically with regards to age of wording, as regards the “war on terror”… A phrase which he disapproves of.  Yet, he doesn’t seem to have any trouble whatsoever with Janet Napolitano labeling incidence of terrorism “manmade disasters”.  .

• BUMPER STICKER OF THE DAY:

  

The Facebook profile picture I use when I am probably sitting online at home looking all ugly.

JonesToTheGrindstone.com

It’s Friday night, already past 10, and the line to get in is forming. Everybody has got their best face forward–carefully selected images. No ugly faces.

Everyone has their most put out there and their words carefully chosen. You can reel-in anything you conveyed before you send it out into the public: start to say it, stop, change your mind, backspace a little, and thrust it out there finally. It’s cool—no one heard you start out, fumble, and try all over again. Many chances to get the right message published—self-editing at its finest.

A real boon is that any adult can be a member of this club, but not everybody is admitted to every room. Every member has their own VIP suite with their name on the door in boldface. In fact, if you know (or, are just drifting by as a beautiful stranger) the boldfaced VIP and simply request a relationship, you may be able get on their guest list.

But, beware; you only get out of it what you put into it. If you just sit on your ass and don’t come up with your own witty remarks detailing what you do with yourself, then you might as well not even be there. You literally have no status.

Another option is piggybacking on others’ well-done conversation-starters. At least in that instance you are playing the game nicely with others. And running with scissors is not preferred. If you do, you may get bounced to never return to that VIP’s lounge. All with the click of a switch—happens that fast. Deleted.

All in a nightclub’s alcohol-scented, darkened rooms, right? Not even close—try your PC or even your Iphone. Where else could this nighttime haven and workday guilty pleasure be other than online at FACEBOOK (FB)?

Don’t act like you’re too good to be forced out of desperation to use such social networking tools. I, too, thought I wouldn’t see myself on such a stage. However, I began to see its virtues and ease. Of course, the peer pressure to join the digital lemmings was there, too.

I’ve heard before that maybe some of those old relationships’ doors should’ve probably remained closed, but I disagree. Finding out what some of your former cohorts are doing in the world and re-establishing those ties is a good thing, especially in these “disconnected times” of “transientness” and suburbs. Or, if nothing else, it will make my next class reunion better instead of the bane of my existence.

When I first began on FB, I admit that I felt too exposed to judgment. For example, I went to a high school where the student body was groomed to be a collection of jackasses. For example, the yearbook published a “Most Beautiful/Most Handsome” contest, complete with rankings—judged by some staff (!) and students. (The adults who sponsored that crap must have shit for brains.)

Having that hardwired instinct looming in the back of my head, I initially decided to only let those who I call “friend” now and others that are bona fide personalities from my past be my “FB friends.” And absolutely no strangers (nunca, never). I held tightly to that theory until one Friday not long ago.

Let me introduce my real-life friend from ninth grade and FB Best Friend Forever (BFF), Lynn Marx*. How is Lynn my FB BFF, but not my BFF in my everyday, real-time life? Well, because Lynn and I exchange witty banter and clever insults constantly on FB. It is great–always good for a chuckle or even a tearful roar. And, at times, the cyber pat on the back when needed to help move on from an impacting negative incident. However, I have not actually laid eyes on (except her FB carousel of profile pictures) or heard her voice since 1985.

Caution: Lynn (although a self-confessed, “used to be timid” user) is an “open-armed” FBer. That means she will let anybody and everybody on her FB guest list and the more the merrier (500+). Well, one Friday morning I got a “friend request” on my FB home page and the only “mutual friend” my courter had listed was (bingo!) Lynn.

Despite my solid “real-life friends only” credo, I weakened a bit and decided to shoot Lynn an email asking her to vouch for her buddy, “Tom Jones.” I mean, he looked respectable, an older man with sophisticated, charming looks. And he was dressed sharply with plenty of gleaming silver hair.  Lynn replied that she did not know him, but added that, “What is it going to hurt? He’s in Texas and you are in the middle of Georgia, for crissakes!”

Since I have a tendency to crumple under peer pressure (high school!) like a childhood “afterschool special” broadcast’s protagonist, I relented, and let Tom into my VIP lounge. I needed to chill and just go with it.

An hour or two later I checked my FB wall. Look! My new friend, Tom, had dropped by to welcome me into his cyber world with an odd, little message next to his silver-topped mug, “Thanks for connecting with me.” One side of me was like, “Well, that was proactive of him to come say, ‘hello,'” while the other side of me was thinking (with one eyebrow raised), “This seems phony and canned—go investigate immediately!” The cynical voice won that one and off I went to go peruse Tom’s page to get some information on him.

Tom’s page had very little on it—almost blank. But, he is listed as “married”—thank goodness, not on the prowl. Next, I saw the “info” tab and clicked on it. Instantly Tom’s work history was displayed. Tom started working in the advertising field in the ’70s. I guess that makes him close to 60 years old—even safer than being married: old. I surmised that Tom must be on FB to keep his “finger on the pulse” of what is “hot and now” with certain demographics, driven by career interests.

With that in mind, I posted on his wall asking if he had found me for this purpose. A few minutes later Tom posted on my wall commenting that about half of his guest list was composed of real acquaintances and that the other half was split between virtual people “reaching out” to him and vice versa. After that, I went and glanced at his guest list. I didn’t see any half-naked girls or pictures of phallic-shaped objects. I concluded, “Well enough.”

A couple of hours passed and I get another blind friendship request. This courter is an around 50-looking man who resembled a pudgy Mafioso type from New Jersey with a deeply-lined forehead and wearing average-guy glasses. His name was “Mark Bridges” and was listed as living in Los Angeles. Who was the common friend this time—Tom!? Too, I decided to scan Mark’s friend list—no obvious red flags. Continuing on the path of my new “FB friending” outlook, I held my breath, put my other foot in the water, and clicked on “accept”.

Straightaway, I skipped over to Mark’s room and there was Tom’s rubber-stamp and hallmark, “Thanks for connecting with me,” floating on Mark’s strangely clean page. I noticed that their new friendship had commenced right after Tom’s and mine had. (Huh?) But, to be fair, his “info” tab said he had his own PR firm in L.A. I mean, who doesn’t out there, but maybe he had work-related interests in this FB phenomenon, just like our mutual friend, Tom.

My curiosity over this suspicious affiliation moved me to post on Mark’s wall, “How did you find me?” I calculated that Mark would be unlikely to respond since it would inadvertently expose himself as the trolling FBer that he seemed to be. But, maybe he would fall for it.

Friday night arrived and I was already in my flannel pjs, face sans make-up, hair pinned up, and a cold beer in my hand. Heavenly! Looking for some stimulus, I decided to go hit Club FB. No one can see how I look while I chat in my VIP suite. Besides, I already have my “Klub Karen” profile picture up to represent me in how I should look while fronting on a Friday night.

Alas, I have a new wall post, from my newest FB friend, Mark! And it is terribly flattering and so…insightful. Mark showered me with compliments. For example, he wrote that he could clearly see that I was witty and sexy and that he adored my candor. He practically said that I shook him to his core, for crying out loud. Hey, I’ll take all that and a bag of chips. But, really, he claimed all that from eyeballing my Klub Karen headshot and a couple of barbs aimed at Lynn? I couldn’t just let it sit and I went over to Mark’s wall and wrote, “Are you for real?”

Bam! Like five seconds later Mark is back on my wall singing my praises and, oddly, plugging his “collage art” hobby. The flood gates of bragging burst open and he couldn’t stop posting on his career successes, like how he had “booked five Oprah shows”. While he continued to gush on himself with multiple posts, I went and clicked on his website—seems he had done nothing of note since 2006. (Hmmm.) And then I got to read some more about his art collages. I checked those out on his website, too, and they sucked. (It made me think, what if this were happening in a real club, wouldn’t it be so nice to just click over and read up on the grunt that was hitting on me while he rambled on about himself?) My gut feeling was that Mark was high, but I have no proof.

Ding! Ding! As Mark went on and on, our silver-haired friend Tom faded into my VIP room by way of the IM feature in the lower right-hand corner. The conversation mostly went like this:

Tom: “Why did you accept my friendship?”
Karen: “Are you filling out a market survey?” (Seemed as if he was fishing to see if I was attracted to his elderly, statesman-like profile picture.)
Tom: “I’m quite a bit older than you.”
Karen: “I can see that, duh.”
Tom: “Would you like me to vanish?”
Karen: “If you want to.”
Tom: “Should I take a couple of steps back?’
Karen: [lengthy pause] (I’m thinking, don’t trip on your walker, Grandpa.) “Do you know my friend, Lynn, whose friend list you found me on?”
Tom: “Does anyone really know anyone on FB?”

Karen: “Yes.”

Since I had both of these tools on the screen at the same time, I decided to screw with them by asking how long they had known each other and that they could easily IM each other right then. No response. Also, I implied they were gay together, just to be antagonistic. No reply. It seemed as if last call at the club had elapsed and everybody had clicked-off, a little pissed-off.

Saturday afternoon ushered in an email on my “real” home email account. It was from Kelly Dane, an old high school and FB friend. Kelly is a natural beauty of Scandinavian descent. She has got fantastic cheekbones and is a definite head-turner. Apparently unaffected Kelly received a FB friendship request from the “Silver Bullet”, Tom. It was so cute when Kelly mentioned that she couldn’t find Tom in our yearbook, to help jog her memory of this long-lost school pal. I had to break it to her that Tom was around sixty, certainly not in our yearbook and that he was out trying to “click-up chicks.”

I wanted Tom and Mark to know that I definitely knew what they had been up to—scanning girls’ pictures and hoping for some contact with them. After going back to Tom and Mark’s walls, I noticed that they had been whitewashed—nary a trace of last night’s endeavors, not even a collage. And after closer inspection, many of their friends were actually celebrities instead of interactive FBers. This prompted me to compose a “note” and send it out to 25 male and female FB friends, including the perverts:

“”clicking up chicks” is when weird men ‘collect’ female FBers just for the headshot on their guest list, chance to be a voyeur, and/or hope to actually meet them in person.

For example:

Last night, I exchanged comments and postings with some guys who combed friends of friends lists to ‘click-up chicks.’ ”

It didn’t take long for some comments to come pouring in. I found it very amusing when I got a remark from an innocent male that said, “WTF am I doing on this note?!?”

Not surprisingly, I soon discovered that Tom and Mark had deleted me. Knowing that Lynn likely still had access to Tom’s page, I immediately “inboxed” (where all the high-flying action really is) her and asked her to go check on Tom’s wall. I waited, with white knuckles, to see what, if any, activity was going on over in Tom’s VIP lounge. Lynn shoved the new information in my inbox:

Mark: “Just had my first negative FB experience. That Karen is a psycho. She is saying we are stalkers, could not read our humor. You should do yourself a favor. Treat her like a rodent, pick her by the tail, hold your nose, and discard.”

All that did was confirm my hunch that those two deserved a “sting operation” and that I had been correct, especially since they had just “made friends” the day before. Now they’ve got each other’s backs!

Time has passed, the dust has settled, and I have not had a FB Friday night like that one since. However, I have continued to let more strangers into my VIP suite, but only after they accept my, “You may come in, but no BS or you’re gone,” disclaimer. Also, I only allow them in my room if I have seen several numbers of their posts on my real friends’ walls.

Occasionally, I do get random-as-hell friendship requests where there are no “mutual friends.” Like now, I have a cheesy-looking man from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) rotting in my FB inbox. He is wearing a woven satin, fitted vest over a wildly printed blouse and holding up his cell phone in a coy manner, like he is daring me to “connect” with him.

Scratching my head, for UAE-guy and I have no obvious links. Finally, I connected the dots: those FB groups. Oh! My personal Pied Piper, Lynn Zeid, suggested I join the elitist group, “I Say ‘F*CK’ and I’m Still Classy,” and that is where this gem of manhood must have found me.

Damn, I’m still starring in that Afterschool Special back from adolescence. I haven’t learned a thing, but I have since resigned my membership to that “F-word” club. Hopefully, that will keep some of those Cheese Nips at bay.

* All names have been changed.

**I have since converted to being an “open-armed FBer.” I have yet to again experience anything like I did with Mark Bridges.

Goodbye 2009!  Hello 2010!

Nearly everyone I talk to expresses relief at the end of 2009.  It would be a good year to forget, that is, if we didn’t have to deal with the consequences of decisions and actions that will reverberate throughout the rest of our lives.

But it’s a new year now, so no doom and gloom.  I’ll leave that to our President, and let me point out that he’s good at it!  I’m not one to make resolutions, but there are several that I’ve made this year:

• Read more
• Write more
• Laugh more
• Love more

Yep, that about covers them.

Like many, I’ve decided to be cautiously optimistic about 2010.  For one thing, the economy is slowly but surely turning around.  This is apparent in all of the government-released economic statistics that indicate increased economic activity.  Initial jobless claims are declining.  Factory orders, inventories and industrial capacity utilization are improving, and banks are slowly returning to health.  It bears pointing out that none of this is due to the stimulus package passed and signed into law less than a year ago.  This is just what powerful economies do:  sometimes they contract, and after a while, they start expanding again.  And by the way, kudos to Messers Paulson and Bernanke for making sure the system didn’t collapse fifteen months ago.  (The unemployment rate may begin to recede, but it will be based on the numbers of unemployed and the number of people who have given up looking for work.  Those no longer seeking employment are not part of the unemployment statistics.)

And we get to vote again in 2010.  No, not for President, but President Obama’s job will surely be more interesting and challenging this time next year.  You see, one of the reasons that so many people are feeling more optimistic about 2010 is that they will be able to choose differently come election time.  Democrats were swept into office in 2008 because the electorate was searching (in vain) for leadership.  Republicans had ceased to provide it, so the Dems got a shot.  Fourteen months later, they’ve managed to ignore, infuriate and frustrate the folks who put them there by passing wave upon wave of legislation that the “customers”, as Harry Truman called them, didn’t want.  In the meantime, they have been totally fiscally irresponsible, and the funny thing is, they still don’t get it, because they’re passing Health Care legislation that a small minority of the population thinks is a good idea.  If you can’t win a Republican seat in the House and Senate this year by blasting the Democratic opposition for the past fifteen months, then you really shouldn’t be running.  If you don’t believe me, then Google Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell.

This is still the greatest economy in the greatest country the world has ever known.  Corporate earnings and as a result, dividends (and tax revenues), will rebound.  With that, jobs will be created.  Working against this juggernaut will be irrational legislation–health care, financial reform, more fiscal stimulus–these will serve to drag down the economy not just this year, but into the forseeable future.

But the good news is that anything that’s passed can be repealed, and the constitutionality of it can be challenged.  President Obama has had an oppressive run.  Check that Freudian slip…an impressive run.  I look forward to seeing how he’ll function without the overwhelming majority he currently has in both houses of Congress.  He has shown little inclination to reach across the aisle up to this point.  He may want to begin to hone that particular skill.

Barack Obama is making history.   He has achieved the greatest presidential communication failure since Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech.

Video:

What's the frequency Joe?

Charles Krauthammer,  Washington Post:

Any government can through laxity let someone slip through the cracks. But a government that refuses to admit that we are at war, indeed, refuses even to name the enemy — jihadist is a word banished from the Obama lexicon — turns laxity into a governing philosophy.

Toby Harden, Telegraph(UK):

The incompetence of the US intelligence bureaucracy is not the only thing that makes Underpantsgate so damaging for Obama. More serious is his failure to understand or acknowledge the nature of the enemy – and to view war as mere politics.

Obama can not grasp the fact that militant Islam is at war with us.    Rather than seeking solutions to keep our nation safe. Obama seeks scapegoats    Obama does not understand that the system he calls a failure, worked for George W. Bush,  James Carafano, Foundry:

This is the same system that stopped the London-based terrorist plot in 2006. On that occasion, intelligence connected the dots; counterterrorism agents penetrated the conspiracy; Homeland Security developed countermeasures; and with international partners the U.S. took down the terrorists before any bomber got near a plane

Hat tip and more, Nice Deb.

A war president does not out source his   war making decision to his justice department, Byron York,  Washington Examiner:

Top Obama counterterrorism adviser John Brennan says the Justice Department made the decision to handle the case of Detroit terror bomb suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Brennan was asked why the Obama administration did not choose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant. “He was arrested on U.S. soil,” Brennan answered. “The Department of Justice makes that determination about what is the best tool to use.”

President Franklin Roosevelt never entrusted his justice department to take the lead in winning  World War Two.   Then Roosevelt was a  war president

Steve Benen, who can always be depended upon to leap to the defense of anything Barack Obama does,(So long as it bows to the whackjob left) … does it yet again:

OUR STUNTED DISCOURSE…. For over a week now, the right has been working aggressively to go after President Obama over national security policy. But since the failed Christmas-day plot, conservatives haven’t quite come up with a coherent line of attack. Indeed, nine days later, I’m still not quite sure what it is the right is complaining about. I’ve spent the last week feeling a bit like Brick Tamland saying, “I don’t know what we’re yelling about.”

Right-wing pundit Charles Krauthammer seems to think the problem has little to do with substantive disputes, and more to do with semantic differences.

[J]ust to make sure even the dimmest understand, Obama banishes the term “war on terror.” It’s over — that is, if it ever existed.

Obama may have declared the war over. Unfortunately, al-Qaeda has not. Which gives new meaning to the term “asymmetric warfare.”

It’s hard to overstate who strikingly dumb this is. President Obama has stressed repeatedly over the last year, using plain and unambiguous language that even Charles Krauthammer can understand, that he believes the nation is at “war” with al Qaeda and other terrorist networks who seek to commit acts of violence against the United States and its allies. The president never “declared” any war “over.” Krauthammer either hasn’t been paying attention, or he’s blatantly lying, hoping his readers aren’t quite sharp enough to know the difference.

Before I address the trust of your comment, here’s a clue, Steve. When you cite an example suppsoedly proving Obama said or didn’t say something, “Think Progress” isn’t exactly the source to turn to for such proof. That you chose them for your cite confirms to me me you couldn’t do any better… that you’ve got noting at all to back your point with.

That said….

There seems little doubt among the electorate, even among most Democrats, that Obama is seeking to minimize the idea that we are a nation at war. It seems equally clear why he would do so… he’s trying to mollify the far lefties such as yourself and “Think Progress”.  It’s a political choice, not a practical, security driven one… and certainly not one based on facts.

You say:

If our discourse could rise above a junior-high level, “even the dimmest” would understand that the key to national security is the efficacy of the policy, not the semantics. And when it comes to counter-terrorism, Obama and his team have proven themselves quite effective at capturing, detaining, and occasionally even killing terrorists.

Yeah, right, Steve. Which of course is why all the headlines all seem to be about an underwear bomber out of Detroit, these days.  Yep. That’s as good an example as any of the efficacy of Obama terrorism policy . And of course Obama’s not trying to minimize the political fallout. That’s why he took three flipping days to even comment on that bombing attempt (During which time he refused to refer to the crotch bomber as a Muslim terrorist)  and why it took less than three hours for that self-same President to issue a statement about Dick Cheney.

Do you think everyone missed what Obama considers the priority, here?

Once again, reality runs over your rhetoric.

Ummmm… Steve? I’d get some iodine for that. You’re welcome.

6 degrees outside here at Casa de Bit the moment.

Four dead in Chicago because of the recent cold.

North Carolina is seeing a record cold snap.

The British are also seeing record breaking cold.

India says hundreds have died in the cold there.

Personally, I’m waiting for the global warming protests to start.

Obama can’t be too happy about this. In what can only be considered a flat rejection of Obama policy, Rasmussen reports:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% oppose the use of such techniques, and another 12% are not sure.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

Cold Fury, who also notes the poll, says:

Yeah, well, the 58% who favor harsh treatment for implacable killers ought to have thought of that way before now. That’s not the change idiots voted for, and now we’re all stuck with it. Maybe if that 58% hadn’t forgotten the lessons of 9/11 (or refused to learn them in the first place), we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in. Now all we can do is hope we stay lucky — because luck is all we have left, now that the Barrackhorroids are in charge

While I don’t dispute that there are a number of people who voted for Obama because they favored civilian treatment for the terrorist scum, I dare say the majority of the American voter thought it one of the more idiotic planks in his platform.  In reality, the numbers presented here haven’t shifted all that much on this specific topic from about 2005, going forward.  For that reason, I consider all bomb is claim to the moral high ground, to say nothing of his claim to a mandate of the masses, to be nigh on comical. it would make it all the way to high comedy, if it wasn’t so dangerous a concept.

CF also notes Ed Morressey at Hot Air saying:

In this case, though, I do find myself at least acknowledging that the FBI is a legitimate choice. After all, the terrorist was detained in the US, and his actions took place in American airspace. I’d prefer that the military handle it, but a case can be made for civilian processes.  As far as the waterboard is concerned, I’d prefer other methods get used. I doubt that the EunuchBomber has much information on other plots, unlike a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Ramzi Binalshibh. However, he shouldn’t be allowed to lawyer up before we have a chance to find out.

Too late for that. Any information UFA does have is going to stay locked up for good now. Nice job, Barky! I’m sure we’ll be able to find a proper way to thank you and the rest of the weak-on-defense Democrat Socialist morons (after Muslim terrorists manage another successful run at slaughtering a few hundred — or thousand — of us) for working so zealously to safeguard the supposed Constitutional rights of non-citizen enemy combatants.

I do have to say that I am sympathetic to Mike’s comments here.  I also have to say I’m a little annoyed with Ed, who should have figured out a long time ago that a trust in civilian law, assumes a civilian government that is trustworthy. That particular point has never been more potent in these United States than it is right now.  Mostly, because we’ve never had a government that was so untrustworthy before.

The first clue to the level of untrustworthiness is when they consider comments from Dick Cheney to be of a larger danger to Americans, than someone on an airliner with a bomb in his underwear.

From Erick Erickson, Red State:

People tell me the President’s rush to acknowledge the attack on the CIA in Afghanistan and mourn the deaths openly, publicly, and via press release is a huge no no. The CIA and greater intelligence community would prefer not to have the attention put on them. Additionally, because the President took the time to draft a blanket statement focused on the CIA in general instead of individually and more privately focusing on the families of the victims, it acknowledges the CIA’s work in Afghanistan, acknowledges that the attack has an impact on the CIA, and gives the terrorists a new recruiting tool — “you too can cause America to publicly mourn the loss of their spies.”

An agent’s identity is a protected state secret, whether or not the agent is alive or not. Where is the special prosecutor?

Further, giving the Islamic terrorists a new recruiting tool, seems close to treason to me.  What say you?  On December 8, 1941, did President Franklin Roosevelt acknowledge just how badly Japan had damaged our fleet?    No.   Just because Roosevelt had lost a battle,  he had a war to win