atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#1912: Sounds like Obama stuffed it.

Sarah Palin on the speech.

Dennis on the speech.

A editorial on Obama in general.

The biggest mistake from Gaffe-O-Tron was the thing with the Supreme Court. Limbaugh pointed out that it was, essentially, Obama ignoring the entire "seperation of powers" thing set forth in the Constitution.

By the accounts I've heard, it was not exactly a stem-winder of a speech; and even the obvious applause lines didn't garner much applause, not even from Democrats who aren't facing re-election this year.

Meanwhile the Democrats still desperately need ObamaCare if they're to have any hope of retaining power and so they vow to keep fighting for it.
Similarly, AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said the Senate should come up with a measure that the House can pass. "We fought too long and too hard for health care to quit for now," Trumka said in an interview.
Notice that the issue is "health care" now, not "health care reform" or "socializing medicine". (The latter description is, by the way, the most accurate.)

This is what they do: if you want the immigration laws enforced, you're "anti-immigrant". If you want to be able to buy your own health insurance--or choose not to be covered at all--you're "against health care". You see?

Anyway, what color is the sky in that man's world? The Senate should come up with a measure the House can pass? I hate to tell you this, dude, but the Senate is your stumbling block, here--Democrats no longer have a supermajority. If you want to seize control of the medical system you're going to have to get the House of Representatives to accept whatever the Senate can manage.


The most interesting part of this Michelle Malkin piece is the revelation that Senator Kirk from Massachusetts is still voting.

Let me explain this: about nine days ago, on Tuesday, January 19, there was a special election held in Massa--oh, you heard about it? Well, it seems that the guy who won it was a Republican, and according to the extant laws, because the election was held--not certified or anything, just held--Mr. Kirk is no longer eligible to vote as one of Massachusetts' two Senators.

It's been nine days since the election, and Scott Brown has still not been seated as the duly elected junior Senator from Massachusetts. Nine days--when history has shown that new Senators from Massachusetts could be seated as quickly as one day post-election.

Gee, what could possibly be holding up the seating of Mr. Brown? Might it be the fact that he's a Republican and the Senate is currently controlled by Democrats?

Ms. Malkin links to this piece at Legal Insurrection, which presumably is what prompted her to realize this is bogus.

Regardless of whatever veneer of legitimacy the Democrats are placing on this, Kirk's vote is illegal and should not be counted.

Sorry; he is no longer the junior Senator from Massachusetts, and has not been since about 10 PM EST, 1/19/10.

* * *

This is certain to fry a lot of liberals' shorts: Fox News is the most trusted news source in America.

Commentor Chris: "You should have included Comedy Central. I'd bet more people trust Jon Stewart than any of the other news anchors."

...Jon Stewart is a comedian, not a "news anchor". His show is comedy based on news.

* * *

The Law of Unintended Consequences again rears its ugly head. If your country has a problem with overpopulation and you limit familes to one child--and your country springs from a culture which values male children above female--you are essentially emplacing a government mandate to cause a severe sex imbalance in your population.

There are all kinds of sinister motives I can ascribe to this, but to be honest I think it's just a simple matter of the Communists not thinking things through. People love their children; they won't take steps to have only boys but will accept the luck of the draw--after all, that old custom is pre-Revolution and we are all good Marxists now!

...except that the old customs still hold, and people want male children rather than female.

Eh? "What's this 'sinister motive' nonsense," you ask?

Well...I realize that it's awfully reactionary thinking on my part, but a suitably cynical head of state might think this could work as a way of breeding a really huge army; figure out the male-female imbalance and then draft the excess male population (plus a certain percentage) as one huge mofo of an army. You can overwhelm whoever you plan to invade with sheer numbers, and it actually works in your country's favor--demographically and long-term--as it ensures that only the fittest members of your surplus male population survive to breed.

This would require, however, a hell of a lot of thought and planning and effort, and it really is simpler to assume that none of this was taken into consideration. The ChiComs realized they had a population problem, and enacted a rule to fix it--and their "fix" is causing other problems.

* * *

Solar power is not enough electricity; Arizona home condemned. Well, that's interesting; here we're told that solar power is the answer to all our problems, yet someone who tries actually to make it work instead gets in trouble.

There's no pleasing people, I tell you.

* * *

Another bit about iPad.

* * *

Well! No big July 3 fireworks show in Chicago this year. Reason: budget problems.

Meh. I've never gone to see one; I try to avoid going into Chicago because it's a traffic and parking nightmare, particularly during special events.

* * *

We got a couple inches of snow, and now it's bitter cold outside. It's supposed to be a bit warmer tomorrow.


  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.