Don’t get me wrong. I’ve always liked the movies that he was in. I just can’t look at him in the same way anymore though. Kind of ruined it for me.

Samuel L. Jackson I Voted for Obama BECAUSE HE’S BLACK

Barack Obama’s politics meant nothing to Samuel L. Jackson because the “Pulp Fiction” star only voted for the president for one reason and one reason only … because he’s black.

In an interview with Ebony magazine, Jackson explained, “I voted for Barack because he was black. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people — because they look like them … That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me.”

via Samuel L. Jackson — I Voted for Barack Obama Because He’s Black | TMZ.com.

This comes from Salon:

Repulsive progressive hypocrisy
By Glenn Greenwald

During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:

The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.

The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.

More

US drone-fired missiles suspected to have killed Al Qaeda’s Pakistani leader, 3 others

PESHAWAR, Pakistan – A US drone strike on a house in northern Pakistan killed at least four suspected militants, and is suspected to have killed Al Qaeda’s Pakistani leader Badar Mansoor, Fox News reports.

The attack is the second in 24 hours. A strike Wednesday in the same area killed at least 10 and several others were injured.

The back-to-back strikes could be an indication the drone program is picking up steam again after a slowdown caused by tensions with Pakistan over accidental American airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last year.

The U.S. held off on carrying out drone strikes for over six weeks after the deadly accident on Nov. 26. There have been a handful of attacks since they resumed in January, but the last two are the first consecutive strikes since the border incident.

The house hit before dawn on Thursday was located in the main bazaar in Miran Shah, the biggest town in the North Waziristan tribal area, the country’s main sanctuary for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants, said Pakistani intelligence officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

via Report: US Drone-fired Missiles Suspected To Have Killed Al Qaeda’s Pakistani Leader, 3 Others | Fox News.

Coulter Care
By Peter Ferra

Schooling Ann Coulter on the individual mandate

Sorry, Ann. I have adored you as a commentator, as you know, and appreciate your kind words about me in the past. But in discussing the individual mandate in your piece last week, “Three Cheers for RomneyCare,” you honestly don’t know what you are talking about. In the process, you are transgressing on my own work and past policy achievements, and grossly undermining the policy and political case against Obamacare. Read on, and I will explain in full.

It was me, working for and with conservative health policy guru John Goodman, who first rang the alarm bell for conservatives over the individual mandate in the early 1990s. As I explained recently in this space, it was we who led the fight to kill the Heritage Foundation health bill at that time.

That bill had been introduced by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) because he thought it was the conservative alternative to HillaryCare. Leaving Heritage over the matter and working for Goodman’s National Center for Policy Analysis, I went through the bill line by line and wrote up all the conservative objections, which primarily stemmed from the individual mandate. I then got my critique signed by 37 major conservative leaders.

It was the only time you could find Phyllis Schlafly and Ed Crane signing on to the same document. Others who signed included Paul Weyrich, David Keene, and Grover Norquist. It was a Who’s Who of conservative leaders.

When I delivered the document to Nickles’ office, he had the good sense to pull the bill. Stuart Butler was furious with me, and it has ruined our previously close friendship to this day. I received awards for this work from the American Conservative Union and the Eagle Forum. That is because the Heritage health plan with its individual mandate was detested throughout the conservative movement, and there was broad approbation for my work in practically figuring out how to pull them back.

via The American Spectator : Coulter Care.

Truth, lies and Afghanistan

How military leaders have let us down

By LT. COL. DANIEL L. DAVIS

I spent last year in Afghanistan, visiting and talking with U.S. troops and their Afghan partners. My duties with the Army’s Rapid Equipping Force took me into every significant area where our soldiers engage the enemy. Over the course of 12 months, I covered more than 9,000 miles and talked, traveled and patrolled with troops in Kandahar, Kunar, Ghazni, Khost, Paktika, Kunduz, Balkh, Nangarhar and other provinces.

What I saw bore no resemblance to rosy official statements by U.S. military leaders about conditions on the ground.

Entering this deployment, I was sincerely hoping to learn that the claims were true: that conditions in Afghanistan were improving, that the local government and military were progressing toward self-sufficiency. I did not need to witness dramatic improvements to be reassured, but merely hoped to see evidence of positive trends, to see companies or battalions produce even minimal but sustainable progress.

Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level.

My arrival in country in late 2010 marked the start of my fourth combat deployment, and my second in Afghanistan. A Regular Army officer in the Armor Branch, I served in Operation Desert Storm, in Afghanistan in 2005-06 and in Iraq in 2008-09. In the middle of my career, I spent eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve and held a number of civilian jobs — among them, legislative correspondent for defense and foreign affairs for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

As a representative for the Rapid Equipping Force, I set out to talk to our troops about their needs and their circumstances. Along the way, I conducted mounted and dismounted combat patrols, spending time with conventional and Special Forces troops. I interviewed or had conversations with more than 250 soldiers in the field, from the lowest-ranking 19-year-old private to division commanders and staff members at every echelon. I spoke at length with Afghan security officials, Afghan civilians and a few village elders.

I saw the incredible difficulties any military force would have to pacify even a single area of any of those provinces; I heard many stories of how insurgents controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

I saw little to no evidence the local governments were able to provide for the basic needs of the people. Some of the Afghan civilians I talked with said the people didn’t want to be connected to a predatory or incapable local government.

From time to time, I observed Afghan Security forces collude with the insurgency.

via Truth, lies and Afghanistan – February 2012 – Armed Forces Journal – Military Strategy, Global Defense Strategy.

They can’t do it the right way, the way it is given in the Constitution, so they want to change our Constitution to fit their collective socialist agenda.

Keep this shit up, and there will be another revolution. Those of us that took the oath like myself, will defend the Constitution against ALL enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, and are ready to continue to defend it even now.

You assholes that think you can trample on the Constitution without a fight, are in for a rude awakening.

‘Breaking Free From the Constraints of the Founding Fathers’
By Victor Davis Hanson

In the last week in the popular press and academic journals there have been several pre-election essays and op-eds about the cumbersome nature of the U.S. Constitution as we were reminded by the president and its unsuitability for emulation by other countries per Justice Ginsburg, given contemporary supposedly superior models. In addition, we are told that food stamps are a great win-win situation for everyone, and that breaking immigration laws are infractions not really violations.

What we have here is an assault on traditional American notions of self-reliance, respect for the law, and a sense of American exceptionalism as embodied by the Constitution. It is weird, to say the least, to even hint of superior constitutional systems elsewhere, given the current chaos in South Africa, and the coming implosion of the European Union — not to mention the mess in the Middle East and Russia.

via ‘Breaking Free From the Constraints of the Founding Fathers’ – By Victor Davis Hanson – The Corner – National Review Online.

The sun heats up the Earth, sometimes a lot, sometimes not. The clouds cool the planet and recycle water through evaporation, which also cools the planet. Funny how that shit all works together to make a nice cozy planet to live on.

I know it’s a simple explanation, but it works.

At any rate, there are a couple converts from the green moron farm in Germany.

Via Hot Air Green Room:

Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate

In fact, it seems as if it isn’t really much of a debate anymore.

First, let me be clear, the debate among scientists isn’t whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether, even, it can cause warming, but instead on what real (if any) total effect it has overall on the climate. In other words, is there a saturation point where additional CO2 has little marginal effect, or does it build to a tipping point where the change is radical? Robust climate or delicate climate?

Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd’s theory.

So, on to the latest high profile defections:

One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

via Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate « The Greenroom.

Senate Passes Bill Allowing Airports To Evict TSA Screeners

Legislation could lead to despised federal agency being marginalized from aviation security

Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.com
Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The Senate has passed legislation that includes a provision allowing airports to replace TSA screeners with private security, opening the door for the widely loathed federal agency to be marginalized from aviation security altogether.

The bill was primarily concerned with how the Federal Aviation Authority would be funded for the next four years, but also included measures that would force the TSA to reconsider applications from airports to replace TSA workers with their own privately hired screeners.

“Security companies would have an easier time winning contracts to operate airport checkpoints,” reports Businessweek.

via » Senate Passes Bill Allowing Airports To Evict TSA Screeners Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.