The MJS Loves Spending Your Money

Nobody was surprised when what is supposed to pass for an editorial board at the MJS endorsed Pol Pot’s Task Force report. You can read the editorial here.
You can read the report here.
You can read my earlier comments here.

Naturally, the MJS endorsed most of the moronic proposals. If the MJS was really serious about reducing greenhouse gases, they would be ALL OVER Pol Pot Dole regarding his absolute refusal to even consider nuclear power for the generation of electricity.

Now, I know why the MJS board doesn’t mind the pricetag for all of the proposals. None of them will have a job in five years and will revert to the time-honored tradition of sucking at the public trough.

Dear Brett….Don’t Go Away Mad….Just Go Away

I keep hearing on the radio how Brett “The Bitch” Favre is stealing attention from the Brewers.

I don’t get it. Brett has turned into a little whiner and The Crew is not accepting losses. The only attention being stolen from The Crew is by the whores in the MSM who still have dreams of wiping Favre’s reproductive fluids from their collective chins.

Note: Messrs. McGinn, Silverstein and Hunt of the MJS are to be commended for NOT wanting to renew their Favre “Kneepad Club” memberships. Nicely done.

As for me, I’m looking forward to the EAA and a 6-1 homestand. I’ll worry about The Packers when The Crew are out of it. Even though they lost tonight, they aren’t whining like a certain #4 we all used to know and love.

Better Whip Out Your Checkbook

Pol Pot now has his economic destruction plan for the once Great State of Wisconsin. The 100 page report for the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming is now available here.

Read it at your peril.

Dad29 has a nice write up on how this will absolutely destroy any future this state has economically.

Here’s another thing I noticed. Not ONE of the proposals from these hooples, and you can see every hoople who contributed to this report starting on page 78, has an economic impact attached. Trust me, it will be severe.

The mighty AB Fund might have to look at ways to short Wisconsin should these proposals be adopted. I’ve got a few lakes where the DNR will have problems if I win.

Last one to leave, please close the door and turn out the lights. Oh wait, the lights don’t work anymore…no one can afford the carbon credits in Wisconsin due to abject stupidity which you all voted into office.

Note: As a reminder….hoople equals 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag.

Handy Restroom Instructions for Asia

Going to the Olympics with a little side tour of Southeast Asia perhaps? Please be sure to follow the rules.

Oh Man, This Is Fun

It is so much fun to have great baseball back in Milwaukee. Cubs in next week and that could be the deciding tone for the rest of the race. Sorry to all of you who aren’t into baseball….this is the best…even better than the NFL since you get games everyday.

The Speech He Should Give

From the brilliant Michael Ramiriz at IBD.

The Truth About Obama’s “Tour”

The Investor’s Business Daily had a fine editorial today regarding Barry’s “tour”. Accurately titled, “A Tour De Farce” it points out the abject failure of Obama’s Iraq “policy”. Don’t expect to see anything resembling reporting on this from the MSM.

Campaign ‘08: The man who opposed the surge in Iraq now wants a surge in Afghanistan. But if Barack Obama had his way, there would be no troops to be redeployed and no free Iraq to visit.

Much has been made, too much we think, of the remarks by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the German newsmagazine Der Speigel that seemingly endorsed Barack Obama’s proposed 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

As John McCain has pointed out, and a fawning press has not, there would be no democratic Iraq to visit and no Prime Minister al-Maliki to have a photo-op with if we had listened to Obama. Instead, the jihadist victory that would have resulted would have rivaled the killing fields of Cambodia.

In January 2007, Obama introduced legislation in the Senate to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by March of this year. If that proposal had been adopted, our troops would have been leaving, not entering, Iraq in 2007.

In other words, the surge never would have happened, much less succeeded. The jihadists would have simply set their snooze alarms and waited, and Iraq’s democracy and its people would have been doomed.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told “Fox News Sunday” that setting an unconditional timetable for withdrawal, as Obama wants, is “dangerous” and that removing troops from Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground.

“I’m convinced,” said Mullen, “(that) making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important. We’ve been able to do that. We’ve reduced five brigades in the last several months and, again, if conditions continue to improve, I would be able to make those recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions.”

The surge that Obama opposed has succeeded magnificently. Al-Qaida and the jihadists have been routed, along with the Mahdi army of Muqtada al-Sadr. A functioning democracy that has proved capable of defending itself is in place. The last of the five extra brigades President Bush sent in 2007 will be out next week.

Iraqi security forces recently took responsibility for a 10th province and expect to assume responsibility for all 18 provinces by year-end. Al-Maliki’s government has made huge strides in political reconciliation. Foreign governments are forgiving debts and opening embassies. U.S. casualties and sectarian violence have plunged.

Yet we doubt seriously that Obama’s first words to Gen. David Petraeus, Centcom commander and architect of the surge, were “Well, General, I was wrong.” Obama was caught recently purging criticisms of the surge from his Web site. We also doubt that Obama will explain why he refused to vote to condemn MoveOn.org’s “General Betray Us” ad.

So to whom do Obama and the Democrats give credit for this success? Certainly not the brilliance of Gen. Petraeus and the skill and bravery of the 170,000 troops under his command. And certainly not the wisdom of the commander in chief in approving needed changes in leadership and strategy.

Obama’s visit to Afghanistan was necessary, considering that as chairman of a subcommittee having jurisdiction he hasn’t held a single hearing on a theater of operations he now deems critical.

The irony here is the man who would have handed al-Qaida a major victory in Iraq wants to pursue its remnants and its figurehead leader in Afghanistan. Our policy against al-Qaida has failed so miserably that there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

The German government wisely had Obama move his unprecedented foreign campaign rally away from the Brandenburg Gate to the ironically named Siegessaule, or Victory Column. Victory was not what Obama supported in Iraq. A better site for his speech would have been Munich.

I know it’s an impossibility but it would be just outstanding if Petraeus refused to meet with Obama. After all, Petraeus is a winner.

New York Times = Expensive Fishwrap

From Drudge

The Dead Grey Lady shows why it is no longer the “standard” for American newspapers.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper’s decision to refuse McCain’s direct rebuttal to Obama’s ‘My Plan for Iraq’ has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

‘It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,’ NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain’s staff. ‘I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.’

So I guess the Times motto should be changed to “All the news we feel like printing”. What a bunch of assholes.

For the record, here’s McCain’s Op-Ed in its entirety.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military’s readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Obama Whines and Cries When He’s Treated Like a Republican

Congratulations to The New Yorker magazine for publishing the cover.

Naturally, the whiny brat, aka Barack Hussein Obama, and his toadys called it “tasteless and offensive.”

One article of many, here.

Note to Barack Hussein Obama and your minions. Get over it. Grow up.

Great News From G-8

The Wall Street Journal reported on the G-8 and the Kyoto treaty. Not bad for a someone considered a lame duck by the MSM and the libtards. You should go read the whole thing since it’s not being reported in the MSM. (No surprise there.) Here’s a few highlights.

One of the mysteries of the universe is why President Bush bothers to charge the fixed bayonets of the global warming theocracy. On the other hand, his Administration’s supposed “cowboy diplomacy” is succeeding in changing the way the world addresses climate change. Which is to say, he has forced the world to pay at least some attention to reality.

That was the larger meaning of the Group of Eight summit in Japan this week, even if it didn’t make the papers. The headline was that the nations pledged to cut global greenhouse emissions by half by 2050. Yet for the first time, the G-8 also agreed that any meaningful climate program would have to involve industrializing nations like China and India. For the first time, too, the G-8 agreed that real progress will depend on technological advancements. And it agreed that the putative benefits had to justify any brakes on economic growth.

In other words, the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House approach since 2002. The U.S. has relied on the arc of domestic energy programs now in place, like fuel-economy standards and efficiency regulations, along with billions in subsidies for low-carbon technology. Europe threw in with the central planning of the Kyoto Protocol — and the contrast is instructive. Between 2000 and 2006, U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more.

So despite environmentalist sanctimony about the urgent need for President Bush and the U.S. to “take the lead” on global warming, his program has done better than most everybody else’s. That won’t make the evening news. But the fact is that the new G-8 document is best understood as a second look at the “leadership” of . . . you know who.

Imagine that!! I recall the Bush administration saying that from the first day in office. I’m kind of amazed that Europe got on board with this but, better late than never. It should also be pointed out that France produces approximately 70% of it’s electrical needs by nuclear power and is building even MORE nukes.

So much for Pol Pot Doyle and his “no nuke” pledge.

It also looks like the rest of the world ran some numbers and decided the cost was prohibitive.

The G-8 also conceded that global-warming masochism is futile and painfully expensive. If every rich country drastically cut CO2, those cuts would be wiped out by emissions from China and India. “Carbon leakage” is a major problem too, where cutbacks in some countries lead to increases in others with less strict policies, as manufacturing and the like are outsourced. This whack-a-mole won’t stop without including all 17 major economies, which together produce roughly 80% of global emissions.

Much to the ire of Kyotophiles, Mr. Bush started this rethinking last year when he created a parallel track for talks on a post-2012 U.N. program, luring China and India to the table with more practical options. But developing countries, led by that duo, still refused to sign on to the G-8’s 2050 goal. They aren’t eager to endanger their growth — and lifting people out of poverty — by acquiring the West’s climate neuroses.

The irony is that Kyoto has handed them every reason not to participate. Europe knew all along that it couldn’t meet its quotas, so it created an out in “offsets.” A British factory, say, buys a credit to pay for basic efficiency improvements in a Chinese coal plant, like installing smokestack scrubbers. This is a tax on the Brits to make Chinese industries more competitive. Sweet deal if you can get it.

Of course, the gorebalists will never look at the facts. Why? The answer is in the final paragraph.

Given these perverse incentives, the magical realism of Kyoto has backfired in a big way. The global warming elite will never admit this, because that would mean giving up their political whip against George Bush. But Kyoto II is already collapsing under its own contradictions. By sticking to a more realistic alternative, this reviled President has handed his green opponents a way to save face.