Chris the critic crashes on Jeopardy

From his quickness to criticise conservatives, one might expect Chris Matthews to be one of an intellectually elite class of genii.  On at least 4 occasions, he remarked how poorly Sarah Palin would do on Jeopardy.  Last year (1/19/11) Matthews mocked Palin, "I’d like to see her on just a couple of episodes of Celebrity Jeopardy... to just see if she knows anything."

Well, last night (5/14/12) he got his chance to show the world how bright he is on Jeopardy but trailed the entire match and was $10,000 behind Lizzie O'Leary and over $8,000 behind Robert Gibbs at the end of Double Jeopardy.  Everybody blew Final Jeopardy. (NewsBusters) 

I enjoyed watching Chris during a few humiliating minutes of non-arrogance which included a few funny Joe Biden moments.

But the day after the show aired, Chris was back to his usual self, castigating a black pastor for sticking up for biblical, heterosexual, traditional marriage, saying, "I hope you evolve." 

Then, perhaps worried how that might be misconstrued as racist, something he would definitely level at a conservative host in the same situation, he added, "I'm just teasing." (VisionToAmerica)

Now that that it's obvious Chris is not the genius of his delusions, does he have any credibility purveying the news?  And, how can his assessment of Obama as a genius carry any weight either?  Perhaps everybody should take it with a boulder of salt when Chris compares Obama to Jesus, cries during Obama's speeches, or feels a thrill go up his leg when Obama talks. (HuffPost)

This is the same Chris Matthews who, right after the 2008 election, despite his supposed role as a journalist and news show host, assured his audience that it was indeed his job to make sure Obama succeeded.  (MediaBistro)

Two years later, Larry Elder asked him, "Do you still feel as a journalist, it is your job to help Obama succeed?"  Matthews answered, "I certainly feel it is my job to help any new president succeed... until he made some decisions I couldn’t live with." Hmmm.  I don't remember him helping Bush!

At least Chris is honest! He will campaign for Obama until the day he can't tolerate the president any more. Either he's naively doing very biased news reporting or it's an opinion show! (RealClearPolitics)  At least his participation resulted in a Jeopardy donation to a high school in his name.  Best of all, he may think twice before impugning Sarah Palin's intelligence any time soon.

MSNBC: Catholics & Mormons are cultists

Chris Matthews told Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz on MSNBC, that the Republicans are "not going to vote for President Obama. So who they going get to beat him? ... not who they like. They are willing to outsource it to a Mormon.... it's almost like calling up India, or somewhere in the third-world to get your computer fixed. You don't care who is fixing it, just fix the damn computer...

"They have three, or two RCs -- Roman Catholics running and a Mormon, so the three cultists running." (RealClearPolitics)

These 3 amigos think evangelical Christians view themselves as on-shore and Mormons and Catholics are off-shore?  Wow!  The news media elite don't like reality, so they've outsourced the spinning of it to radical leftist liberal loons!

Forgive the talking heads - they are just pandering to crowd.  A Bloomberg News national poll says, a "plurality" of voters had an unfavorable view of the Mormon Church but "positive" attitudes abouts the Catholic Church.  The choice of words is ambigous, since "plurality" simply means plural or many. Where evangelicals are numerous, Santorum is favored over Romney, despite the fact that some evangelicals believe Catholics aren't "saved" either.

In Illinois where Romney easily won, evangelical voters shied away from Romney in large numbers. Brett Benson, a political scientist at Vanderbilt and a great-nephew of the late President Ezra Taft Benson, says there are three strains of political anti-Mormonism:
1. evangelicals
2. political left-wingers who dislike the conservatism of members
3. a middle group, not that well-informed, that considers the religion “weird or strange.”

(Blooomberg)

One of the few legitimate records of Obama's past is a document, acquired by the Associated Press, unchallenged by Obama's supporters, for the Indonesia public school showing him registered as Barry Soetoro, Muslim. (WND)  Obama has said he loves the Muslim morning call to prayer, quoted repeatedly from the Koran, exaggerates the dependency of western progress on Islam's contributions, bowed to Muslim kinds but not European royalty, donned muslim garb, declared the USA is no longer a Christian Nation, apologized to Muslims for the USA, and refered to his faith as muslim. (Conservative Byte)

So, perhaps the question should be, who will the anti-Mormons vote for, a Mormon or a Muslim?

Bin Laden's Dead! But Others Would Make You Feel Guilty For Rejoicing.

This quote's been spreading like wildfire:

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." MLK jr.

Only problem is the first sentence isn't MLK jr.  According to snopes it was written by one Jessica Dovey and it's since been misquoted as MLK jr's own words.

Unfortunately for all the wet blankets out there, the first statement was what set the framework of condemning the rest of us for rejoicing in Osama's death.  Without it, it's praiseworthy stuff, but again, it doesn't condemn anyone for celebrating a world without Osama Bin Laden.

What I find insufferable about this being posted is that those posting it are doing so on the assumption that people are rejoicing out of hate.  I would argue otherwise.  Most people I know aren't saying, "I'm so glad he's dead.  I hated that guy.  What an insufferable bastard.  And he was a real drag at Christmas parties too."  No, instead they're glad justice still works despite the tyrannical actions of men like Bin Laden.  They're ecstatic that an evil organization that kills innocent people has been weakened in the long run.  They're happy their families are a little safer.  I don't see hate in their rejoicing.  I see love; a love of higher ideals and a love for the safety of the innocent.

While some do hate, it is not hate that sweeps the free world right now.  So stop assuming the worst in others and bask in the relief that the rest of us are enjoying.

Osama Bin Laden Headshot FTW!

Whether you're glad justice has been done, or relieved that an evil terrorist organization has been weakened, today is a day all lover's of freedom can celebrate. God bless America.

President Obama takes all the glory and he indeed deserves whatever's left over after due credit is given to the CIA and it's enhanced interrogation programs of the past. He killed Osama! He orderd the CIA to concoct the plan in June of 2009. It was a premeditated hit job, an assassination. Did it really happen? Was it a trick to pull Obama’s poll numbers out of the tank? He’s now the hero of the hour but it will fade as gas prices continue to rise. It must be real - a home run like this, if bogus, would have been staged right before the 2012 electioins! It’s a bona fide kill but so unObama-ish. It was sorta . . . Bush-ish!

Obama put aside any qualms about shooting an unarmed man outside the parameters of the Army Field Guide Obama which he had previously ordered the CIA to follow! He ignored the international rules to which he frequently defers! No presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He acted unilaterally without a mandate from the United Nations. He had the CIA deviate from Obama's usual orders (arrest the terrorist, marandize him, and try him in the civilian court closest to his victims).

Well, in sense the CIA said, "you have the right to remain silent," but I don't think that qualifies as proper marandization. But the point is, Obama made a lot of exceptions to his usual ideology to score the hit, knowing that the vast majority of his supporters are against the death penalty, even after due process has convicted a killer.

Congratulations Mr. President for not acting like your usual self!

For great insight into the search for Bin Laden, check out this book. Written by the head of the CIA's division responsible for finding him, it's a pretty good read.

Instead of admitting that CIA waterboarding provided vital information, including the nickname of the courier who led the CIA to bin Laden, the Obama regime continues an investigation into enhanced interrogation techniques. Does Obama want to put the very CIA operatives behind bars who are responsible for his 10 point improvement in the polls? (WashingtonExaminer)

Federal Shut-Down Averted - Big Deficit Reduction

In his recent press conference, President Obama dismissed the measly budget cuts such as those proposed to Planned Parenthood, saying that the BIG entitlements should be the focus of comprehensive reform. But if he balked at the tiny cuts to destructive programs such as baby killing at Planned Parenthood, why would he champion mammoth cuts to benefits contracts made long ago with the elderly? Was he merely dangling the rope with which he hoped the new leaders in congress would hang themselves? Here's the math:

2011 Pre-deal projected increase in debt = 1,400,000,000,000

2011 Apr 8 deal spending cut = 38,000,000,000

2011 Post-deal projected increase in debt = 1,362,000,000,000

The Commander in Chief threatened to stop paying his military rather than accept this paultry cut in spending as proposed. (Vision) Why? Clinton didn't threaten his military during the government "shut down" of 1995 and 1996! Political blackmail is why!

Perspective: If you were falling behind on your mortage at the rate $1400/month and your spouse found a way to reduce your slide into bankruptcy by $38/month (by cancelling destructive spending such as porn subscriptions), would you argue with her?

Would you be relieved at the reduction in your monthly shortfall? Uncle Sam spent 8.2 times his income in March. (mygovcost) You don't have to be a math wiz to predict the inevitable.

Should he tax the rich to solve the problem? As it is, the top 50% of households pay more than 96% of the income taxes and if Uncle Sam confiscated the entire incomes of everyone making $380,000 or more, he would still not close the $1.4 trillion dollar annual shortfall. (DallasNews)

But wait, the $38.5 billion cut was smoke and mirrors, the Congressional Budget Office tells us. Only $352 million was actually cut from spending - the rest was accounting slight-of-hand. (USNews) But rest assured, the president has his priorities straight - he only agreed to sign the spending cut bill because Republicans dropped their demand to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. (Guardian) How many controversial causes can't be cut because the current regime believes defunding them will cost them votes in 2012? Result - virtually no cuts this budget. My guess is that much of the justification for spending is based on deception as is demonstrated by this video in which planned Parenthood makes the case for federal funding:

Global Warming - The Sea is Rising!

We are told that carbon dioxide is at record high levels and that we humans are the cause of it - case closed! Debate over!

Should you switch to driving a $40,000 Volt (before taxpayr subsidies), install an $80,000 solar kit (before taxpayer subsidies) for your home, or stop burping carbonated beverages? Is there any sacrifice to the gods of global warming that would do any good? Would the green gods believe me if I told them I didn't exhale or that global warming was caused entirely by smokers or that it was the huge carbon footprints of the Prius and Volt that dissuaded me from buying one?

The recent "climategate" fiasco illustrated the willingness of overzealous scientists to tweak the truth when the evidence is inadequate to support the agenda. Their "hockey stick" chart rests on manipulated data AND biased mathematical models. Even before the intentional skewing, scientists failed to account for the closing of hundreds of climate stations across northern Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed and ignored the warming affacts of population sprawl in the vicinities of temperature sensors.

Truth versus agenda:

• No matter if the science is all phony...climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." (Canadian Environment Minister, Christine Steward, 12/26/1998)

• To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios...Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest." (Climate alarmist, Stephen Schneider, Discover Mag. 10/1989)

The earth has been hotter than this many times before. Carbon dioxide levels have been higher than this before. The CO2 in the air, of which only 3% is man-made, is one of the least potent of the many greenhouse gases. Volume for volume, methane is 20 times more potent than COw as a greenhouse gas. The rain forests ooze methane from the rotting vegetation on the jungle floors. Should we panic and cut them down? Even the laypeople have been observing, "From the chart it looks like temperature changes precede carbon dioxide changes." In fact, data-driven science suggests that temperature changes precede carbon dioxide changes by at least 100 years and that oceans, the earth's CO2 repository, release massive amounts of it when the waters warm up. (SkepticalScience) Labels too small? The blue line is temperature. The chart goes back a half billion years.
Myriad factors affect global termperatures such as:

• geometry changes in the earth's orbit


• cycles in the sun's activity


• interstellar dust


• volcanism levels


• continental drift


• ocean current changes


• cloud cover variations


• surface reflectivity


• atomospheric chemistry, particulates, and bacteria

Who would foist such a hoax on the world as global warming just decades after an attempt to scare everybody with global cooling? Three words: Follow the money! Never mind that Al Gore, the self-proclaimed savior of the world, has enriched himself by $100 million by pontificating panic, he typifies the hypocrasy of the environmental elitists. While pushing inconvenience to the little people, he drives limosines, flies on jets, and lives in multiple energy-gobbling homes. When people began to notice what a fat carbon footprint he had, he outfitted his primary residence with alternative energy equipment but when the next year's power bill came, it was higher than before. Gore is just one of a gargantuan gaggle of greedy greenies grubbing for a piece of the global warming dividend.

General Electric (GE) is making record profits selling into the demand for flourescent bulbs created by the federal banning of incandescant lighting in the USA while netting a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit from green energy goodies. GE's CEO is buddies with the White House and, despite having moved company headquarters overseas, was recently appointed to the Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

Meanwhile, politically-connected investors were waiting to make trillions from their investments in the Chicago Climate Exchange where companies would have been required by "Cap and Trade" laws to pay for their violation of carbon emissions regulations. Strangely, the rights to the trading platform software was purchased by Fannie Mae, the too-big-to-fail mortgage giant that recently became the property of the Federal Government. The plan to take over energy, the lifeblood of the country, was poised to be implemented.

But along came the citizens and voted many of the rascals out of Congress and hopes of passing the radical energy legislation died. About a week after the elections, the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsed. (FoxNews) Was the looming gloom and doom real? More from the climate conspiracy than from climate change! Polls show that fewer and fewer folks are taking climate alarmists seriously. Perhaps because the melting glaciers have not caused the ocean to flood Florida yet and the news media has not reported on any folks fleeing the shores for fear of flooding from rising sea levels. Over the last 500 million years, average global sea levels have been 600 feet higher than now. At current rates, it would take 27,000 years to raise sea-levels 1 meter. Whoa -stop rebuilding on New Orleans lowlands!

Uncle Sam has declared Carbon Dioxide a pollutant because it causes global warming but nobody talks about the worst greenhouse gas of all - WATER VAPOR! Shall we stop watering our lawns, cover up the golf ponds, fill in the lakes, and drain all the swamps? Whoa - what can we do about the H2O gase emitted by respiring flora and fauna - hold your breath again! While nobody can say for certain to what extent human activity warms the globe, we can be sure that if the earth gets warmer:

• Fewer people will die from winter cold (casulaties from cold winters far outstrip those from hot summers). Why should Russian worry?


• Food grows better, in more places, and for a greater portion of the year in warmer climates.


• Risks of another ice age are reduced.


• Earth's frozen landscapes will turn green again.


• Lower average global energy consumption.


• The higher carbon dioxide levels that result would support greater growth of green plants as was the case in the carbonaceous 280 million years ago when CO2 levels were 350ppm (compared to only 280ppm today) and plants raised atomospheric oxygen levels to 80% more than is the case today.

No need to worry about the polar bear - over the last 150,000 years, their species handily survived several warm spells like this one and populations are currently increasing (NewsBusters). But can humans survive the climate of regulatory and fiscal insanity that has stormed Washington D.C.? Science is slowly but surely solving the viability problems of alternative energy technologies as seen from the 60% reduction in wholesale solar panel prices over the last three years. But these technology solutions require money.

So, while the Chicken Littles are distracted that the sky is falling and the sea is rising and government has the answers, nothing would improve the world's capacity to care for the environment like a nice sustained diet of prosperity!

Obama Wars: Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen

After campaigning on shutting down the wars in the Mideast, the Obama regime has inserted the US military into Libya and, despite what he said, there are indeeed US boots on the ground, just not in uniform. Obama's mind may be the biggest fulfilment of his campaign promise of change.

Let’s look at the evolution of Obama: 1. He campaigned on getting troops out of Iraq, the unjustifiable war.(MSNBC) 2. Obama did nothing in 2009 during the murder of citizens in Iran by a leader who stole the election saying it was not for the US to “meddle” in their affairs. (BBC) 3. When the supreme court of Honduras methodically removed Zelaya from office for trying to entrench himself permanently in power in violation of that country’s constitution, Obama called for his reinstatement though he was not a friend of the USA. (CBS) 4. Obama said Mubarak, who was a friend of the USA, should “step down.” (USNews) 5. Despite his Nobel Peace Prize, Obama sent fighter jets into war against Libya’s leader behind the leadership of the French president to lob Tomahawk missiles at Libyan targets with civilian casualties.(YahooNews)

Obama is all over the map ideologically and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan! Wasn’t it the French we followed into Viet Nam? Now we follow them into Libya at a cost of $600 million per day?

Obama called the war against Saddam Hussein "dumb" in 2002 and said, “Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.” (GoodDemocrat)

Does Qaddafi pose an “imminent and direct threat to the United States”? No! So, why can’t Obama take his own advice and just let Gaddafi fall away into the dustbin of history? Was Bin Laden hiding there? Did the UN suspect WMD there? No! Why the big shift in attitude toward war?

Well, he says it was in support of a United Nations resolution. Oh, well, in that case….. Even some members of Obama’s own party in Congress are angrily questioning the constitutionality of the Commander in Chief Obama. (Politico)

Who is really in charge of the war in Libya? Does Obama really believe US jets can stop violence on the ground where loyalists are murdering rebels and vice versa?

Irrespective of fragmented UN support, the USA is going to be left holding the bag again. Obama substituted a UN whim for the constitutionally required congressional approval and sent our young folks to yet another war. Obama used to say, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" and VP Biden used to say he would push impeachment for the president who goes to war without congressional approval (DailyPaul). A flip-flopping politician's attitude is change you can believe in! Three wars simultaneously? Not bad for a Nobel Peace Prize recipient! How much money? By mid-May US operations in Libya had cost $664m (FT).

While the controversy still boiled over Obama's violation of the constitution in not obtaining congressional approval for the war in Libya within the required 60 days, the CNN announced US airstrikes in Yemen have resumed (CNN). What? Resumed? Who knew there had been any airstrikes before that? It was a covert operation according the New York Times (NYT). Like the liberal political force's operations behind closed doors during legislative missions against the American people!

Obama is averaging one new war per year, far more violent than Bush, and for reasons that are far less clear than the ones he lambasted when the USA invaded Iraq - a bit ironic for a Nobel Peace Prize winner.