VIDEO: OBAMA ON TRANSPARENCY DAY AFTER INAUGURATION

Seriously, see if you can stop yourself from laughing with disgust or yelling at your computer screen when watching this one. The day after Obama was inaugurated - January 21, 2009, he gave this little speech about how transparency under his administration would be unmatched compared to previous administrations. Watching Obama then talking about transparency through the prism of 18 months of his being anything but, is quite the experience.

As you watch, see how many times you can remember White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stonewalling the most basic of questions. The first example that came to my mind were his repeated refusals to address the alleged job offer to Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak. Of course, this administration's handling of the oil spill is another quintessential example of anti-transparency.

h/t to Flopping Aces

VIDEO: JAY LENO EXPOSES MASS IGNORANCE

During his 'Jay Walking' segment, Leno hits the streets to see just how knowledgable every day American citizens are about the country in which they live. As you might have guessed, they didn't fare well. If I may, there are two observations I had that stuck out to me. If you live in this part of Texas, you're very familiar with the barbs that go back and forth between Longhorns and Aggies. The former has to fight back against accusations of tea-sippin' and the latter has to constantly fight insults to 'Aggie engineering'.

In this video, Jay actually provides Longhorns with fodder on a silver platter when a man wearing a Texas A&M shirt tells Leno that the reason George Washington crossed the Delaware river was to get to the other side.

The other observation had to do with the last group in the video. The fact that Grandpa knew all the answers while children and grand children were lost gives you an idea about when the public schools system really started heading south.



via Jelly Toast

LOCKERBIE BOMBER NOW IN GREAT HEALTH

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi should be dead by now; in fact, he should have died months ago. His alleged terminal illness - cancer - was the reason given by Scottish authorities for his release last August. Here we are eleven months into a three month prognosis and al-Megrahi is expected to live another ten years. This jihadist dirtbag was convicted of killing 270 in the Pan Am 103 bombing on December 21st, 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Now, after being released in some twisted show of compassion, it's learned that the gullibility of Scottish authorities is beyond reproach.

Via the AFP:

The Lockerbie bomber could survive for 10 years or longer, according to the cancer specialist who said last year he would be dead within three months of his release.

Professor Karol Sikora, who assessed Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi for the Libyan authorities almost a year ago, told The Sunday Times newspaper it was "embarrassing" that he had outlived his three-month prognosis.

Sikora now claims his prognosis was a bit embarrassing; duh! ya think?

The professor told The Sunday Times that the Libyan authorities made it clear to him that if he concluded Megrahi would die in a matter of months, it would greatly improve his chances of being released from jail in Scotland.

"It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point," Sikora said.

"On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify (that)."

Apparently lost on anyone who exercises even a modicum of logic is any illness this dirtbag may have is irrelevant - though now it seems the Scots were played like bagpipes. It shouldn't have mattered if Megrahi only had one day to live. It's more than he deserved. It should be obvious that this wasn't compassion. It was political cowardice.

h/t to Gateway Pundit

VIDEO: WHY JOHN McCAIN MUST LOSE

I am well aware of the concerns surrounding J.D. Hayworth's skeletons with regard to pork barrel spending, Jack Abramoff, etc. The bigger issue here is what happens if John McCain wins the primary in Arizona on August 24th. When it comes to immigration, McCain's flip flops make John Kerry look like a piker. I'm also aware of the concern that Hayworth can't win the general election even if he does beat McCain. Again, my bigger concern is what McCain will do after the primary. If history is any indication, he will tack left almost immediately.

Enter this new video from J.D. for Senate. It starts with a clip of Obama this past week talking about immigration reform (amnesty). In it, Obama mentions McCain specifically as a necessary vote for passing amnesty. It then cuts away to McCain on December 8th, 2007 in which the Arizona Senator is on display in all of his amnesty-loving glory. That's followed by Robert Gibbs, echoing Obama's sentiment about McCain.

In fact, I'm almost to the point of a Hayworth loss in November would be better than a McCain victory in August. If McCain wins back his seat, he'll have six years to show complete and utter disrespect for conservatives in much the same way Lindsey Graham is doing right now - he's not up for re-election until 2014. McCain, with his political clout and leadership could do much more damage than an incoming Democrat Senator with no real stripes. The only exception might be McCain getting the Republicans a majority in the Senate. But with McCain, what does that really mean?

Can anyone say, "Gang of 14"? It would be a ridiculous shame if McCain is able to fool people again.

Powerful video from the Hayworth camp...



h/t to Free Republic

G20 SUMMIT ACTUALLY PROVIDES GOOD NEWS

It's quite safe to say that 2010 has not been a good year for Al Gore; it started with Climategate in November of 2009 and continues on a downward spiral with masseuse-gate. Just a year ago, the climate change whack jobs were on the brink of ramming cap and trade down the world's collective throat. At the recent G20 meetings in Toronto, however, it appears that some economic realities, coupled with the growing anti-climate change sentiment among voters in each nation that makes up the G20, pack a big wallop.

Via Lawrence Solomon at the Financial Post:

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.”

So why the change of heart? For one thing, there's been a bit of an economic awakening in Europe. As much as the liberal left tries not to understand where money comes from, at some point that very basic economic lesson comes in the form of a slap in the face; that slap has hit Europe's leaders. Largess on carbon credit technology is not something they can afford to put in their shopping carts - perhaps some good can come out of exorbitant debt.

There are also some political realities being thrust on national leaders - political realities a certain president here in the U.S. continues to ignore. France provides the quintessential example for Solomon:

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to “save the human race” from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.

Let's also not forget one other factor not addressed by Solomon in his piece - the alternate media, which sunk its teeth into the emails to and from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia last year. It was like pushing a huge boulder uphill with the American media but whether the libs in the media want to admit it or not, they were once again on the wrong side of the argument and paid another heavy price in terms of their relevance.

If you need a living, breathing example of why Obama's FCC wants to regulate the internet, look no further than the impact of the alternate media on climate change. Obama fears talk radio and the blogs; he's seen first hand how they can be instrumental in short circuiting a global fraud like climate change.

Read it all.

h/t to Free Republic