Oogieloves? Box Office Disaster; Worst Opening Weekend Ever

Have you ever heard of this film called The Oogieloves in the BIG Balloon Adventure? Well, apparently it opened in over 2100 theaters this weekend-- and man did it ever tank.

From Entertainment Weekly.com:

"After its inauspicious opening Wednesday, when the bizarre kiddie flick The Oogieloves in the BIG Balloon Adventure earned a shockingly low $47 average at each theater, it looked like it could be headed for the worst opening weekend of all time for a film playing in over 2,000 theaters.
Well, it happened.

"According to studio estimates, the colorful toddler-targeting entry, which is being distributed by Kenn Viselman Presents (Viselman formerly found massive success as producer of The Teletubbies), earned a truly awful $448,131 from 2,160 theaters in its debut three-day weekend.

"That gross yielded a per theater average of $207. Yes, you’re reading that correctly: $207!

"Just how low is that? Let’s pretend that the average ticket price for each customer was about $7 this weekend. That would mean that only 30 people saw Oogieloves at each theater — across all its showings — over the past three days."

This film's box office is worse than 2003's Marci X's had been (ultimately earning a $1,675,706 worldwide after a 4 week release)... a film that one Yahoo reviewer described back in the day thusly: "This film was so bad that it killed my friend."

In fact, going all the way back to 1986, the legendary Solarbabies-- the post-apocalyptic rollerskating film--  averaged a $1018 per screen take during an initial release of just 692 theaters. It dwarfed Oogielove's earnings. Ow ow ow!

After watching the preview available at EW.com, it's hard to understand why the Oogielove film flopped. I guess Toni Braxton and Jamie Pressly just aren't the box office gold that they used to be.

Well, there's always next weekend...

"Hug a Union Thug" Booths Set Up Day Before DNC

Hug-a-thug... Real catchy. Just don't try to sell Gadsden flags around them-- especially if you're black.

From The Hill article by Kevin Bogardus (h/t Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit):

"This Labor Day, unions are trying a mix of celebrity, social media and humor to polish up the labor movement’s image in the eyes of everyday people.

"In Charlotte, people will be asked to 'hug a union thug' at a CarolinaFest booth sponsored by the North Carolina State AFL-CIO the day before the Democratic National Convention officially begins. Also in honor of Monday, videos are being posted online thanking workers while actors and athletes will use Twitter to express support for union rights.

"The effort comes as labor has seen increased attacks from Republican-controlled state legislatures and governors since the 2010 elections. Unions were unsuccessful in their attempt earlier this summer to oust Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) after he pushed through legislation that curbed some public workers’ collective bargaining rights"

[...]

"The soft sell also comes as Democrats head into Charlotte for their convention. The choice of Charlotte angered several in labor due to North Carolina’s status as a right-to-work state and having the lowest union density in the country."

sigh...

This Election: A Battle for the Defining Political Problem of the Early 21st Century

An excellent piece from Janet Daley at The Telegraph (h/t Anne Leary at Backyard Conservative)

From Daley:

"Last week’s Republican national convention sharpened what had been until then only a vague, inchoate theme: this campaign is going to consist of the debate that all Western democratic countries should be engaging in, but which only the United States has the nerve to undertake. The question that will demand an answer lies at the heart of the economic crisis from which the West seems unable to recover. It is so profoundly threatening to the governing consensus of Britain and Europe as to be virtually unutterable here, so we shall have to rely on the robustness of the US political class to make the running.

"What is being challenged is nothing less than the most basic premise of the politics of the centre ground: that you can have free market economics and a democratic socialist welfare system at the same time. The magic formula in which the wealth produced by the market economy is redistributed by the state – from those who produce it to those whom the government believes deserve it – has gone bust. The crash of 2008 exposed a devastating truth that went much deeper than the discovery of a generation of delinquent bankers, or a transitory property bubble. It has become apparent to anyone with a grip on economic reality that free markets simply cannot produce enough wealth to support the sort of universal entitlement programmes which the populations of democratic countries have been led to expect. The fantasy may be sustained for a while by the relentless production of phoney money to fund benefits and job-creation projects, until the economy is turned into a meaningless internal recycling mechanism in the style of the old Soviet Union.

"Or else democratically elected governments can be replaced by puppet austerity regimes which are free to ignore the protests of the populace when they are deprived of their promised entitlements. You can, in other words, decide to debauch the currency which underwrites the market economy, or you can dispense with democracy. Both of these possible solutions are currently being tried in the European Union, whose leaders are reduced to talking sinister gibberish in order to evade the obvious conclusion: the myth of a democratic socialist society funded by capitalism is finished. This is the defining political problem of the early 21st century."

It has astonished me that American people can look to the economic events in Europe and, in any seriousness, suggest that we follow their lead. Although I know that the Left and academia suffer from an acute case of European envy, I have still never understood why we would possibly want to follow their example of socialist-democracies that cannot sustain themselves. This unsustainability was reasonably obvious prior to the economic crisis of recent years.

A real representative democracy must have liberty, and liberty is difficult if not impossible to maintain when the majority of the populace is bribed with ridiculous goodies (the police and fire departments, reasonable amounts of social safety nets, etc. not counting as goodies). To be dependent upon those goodies, is to be controlled by them. Votes become guaranteed when peoples livelihoods are controlled by State distributed funds. When votes are guaranteed by controls over peoples incomes, then the democracy is, in many senses, an illusion.

I have never been worried about Obama's policies working and "fundamentally transforming America" simply because his policies can never work. Democratic socialist societies cannot last, and the meager lifespans they have can only work by either outside monies (foreign markets, tourism, etc.) or with some form of patronage (the USSR supporting North Korea, Cuba, Romania, etc.). What large population, liquid money market could America export its goods to? What country could give money to support its population?

It's sort of funny that Obama talked about the GOP agenda being outdated, even as Obama doubles down on the historically proven wrong side of "the defining political problems of the 21st century."

Mt. Obama Washed Away in Charlotte

Heh. I'm sorry, but that sand sculpture looks like a Mad Magazine caricature of Obama. If it wasn't at the DNC, MSNBC would be calling it racist-- especially since that thing is in the South.

Anyhow, Mt. Obama took some damage from the rainstorms.

From The Washington Times article by Stephen Dinan (via Drudge):

"A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte on Saturday afternoon damaged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust of President Obama — an ominous beginning to what many fear is a plagued convention.

"Workers were trying Saturday afternoon to reform the base of the sculpture, built from sand brought in from Myrtle Beach, S.C., pounding and smoothing out the sand that had washed off the facade of the waist-up rendering of the chief executive.

"The sand sculpture was protected from above, and Mr. Obama's face didn't see too much damage. But the storm was so strong that its heavy winds blew the rain sideways, pelting the president's right side and leaving the sand pockmarked and completely erasing his right elbow."

That's some unfair shit. I wonder if Samuel L. Jackson is wondering why it wasn't spared...

University of Colorado's Model Predicts Big Win for Romney

I hope it's right.

From The Daily Caller article by Geoffrey Malloy:

"A presidential election prediction model developed by two University of Colorado professors points to a big win for GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney in November.

"The model, the only of its kind to use more than one state-level economic indicator, has correctly predicted the winner of every presidential election since 1980.

"It predicts Romney winning the electoral college by a 320-218 margin and winning 52.9 percent of the popular vote when only the two major parties’ candidates are considered, the Associated Press reported Thursday.

"Romney, it concluded, will win every state currently considered by pollsters to be a swing state, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Hampshire and North Carolina.

"The model even predicts Romney will win Minnesota and Maine’s Second Congressional District, the electoral votes of which most pollsters consider to be 'safe' for President Obama. Nevada and Iowa are the only swing states it assigns to Obama.

[...]

"Bickers and Berry cautioned, however, that their model used economic data from June, 2012. They intend to update their calculations when new data become available in September.

"And many swing states showed close enough to a 50-50 split that factors other than the economy could tilt them in the opposite direction. Bicker and Berry also did not factor in third party candidates, such as Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, who Public Policy Polling, a Democratic-affiliated polling firm, has noted could significantly diminish Obama’s chances of winning New Mexico."

Actual "hope" I guess.

We'll see.

The Lying Liars "Fact Check" Paul Ryan's Speech

Paul Ryan delivered a stirring speech last night at the RNC-- so of course the Left decided to discredit and destroy him through flimsy and easily disproved lies. As Jacobson at Legal Insurrection pointed out Howard Fineman reacted by tweeting:

And not too much later we get this "fact check" from the AP:

"RYAN: Said Obama misled people in Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wis., by making them think a General Motors plant there threatened with closure could be saved. 'A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: `I believe that if our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year.'

"THE FACTS: Although Obama did not explicitly promise to save the plant, Ryan is right that Obama implied that he had the backs of its workers when he spoke at the factory early in 2008 and issued a statement about its closure later. The plant halted production in December 2008, weeks before Obama took office and well before he enacted a more robust auto industry bailout that rescued GM and Chrysler and allowed the majority of their plants - though not the Janesville facility - to stay in operation. Ryan himself voted for an auto bailout under President George W. Bush that was designed to help GM, but he was a vocal critic of the one pushed through by Obama that has been widely credited with revitalizing both GM and Chrysler."

But as Ed Morrissey points out, the AP either lied outright over this issue, or did such an incompetent job of "fact-checking" that both writer and editor should be fired.

Morrissey points out:

1) The Janesville plant was notified of a pending closure in 2008 but continued to operate into 2009.

2) Obama visited the Janesville plant and promised to keep it and other plants like it open “for the next hundred years.”

From Obama's speech in Janesville at the plant:

"It was nearly a century ago that the first tractor rolled off the assembly line at this plant. The achievement didn’t just create a product to sell or profits for General Motors. It led to a shared prosperity enjoyed by all of Janesville. Homes and businesses began to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets. Jobs were plentiful, with wages that could raise a family and benefits you could count on.

"Prosperity hasn’t always come easily. The plant shut down for a period during the height of the Depression, and major shifts in production have been required to meet the changing times. Tractors became automobiles. Automobiles became artillery shells. SUVs are becoming hybrids as we speak, and the cost of transition has always been greatest for the workers and their families.

"But through hard times and good, great challenge and great change, the promise of Janesville has been the promise of America – that our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat; that we rise or fall as one nation; that our economy is strongest when our middle-class grows and opportunity is spread as widely as possible. And when it’s not – when opportunity is uneven or unequal – it is our responsibility to restore balance, and fairness, and keep that promise alive for the next generation. That is the responsibility we face right now, and that is the responsibility I intend to meet as President of the United States. …

"Those are the steps we can take to ease the cost crisis facing working families. But we still need to make sure that families are working. We need to maintain our competitive edge in a global by ensuring that plants like this one stay open for another hundred years, and shuttered factories re-open as new industries that promise new jobs. And we need to put more Americans to work doing jobs that need to be done right here in America [emphasis Morrissey]."

And this was not the first time Obama made the promise to keep the Janesville plant open. In October 2008 candidate Obama issued this statement:

"Reports that the GM plant I visited in Janesville may shut down sooner than expected are a painful reminder of the tough economic times facing working families across this country. This news is also a reminder that Washington needs to finally live up to its promise to help our automakers compete in our global economy. As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America."

3) After GM was bailed out by the government, the Janesville plant was one of the choices to keep open, but was eventually closed.

"In June 2009, GM considered three sites to locate a small car: its Orion plant in Michigan; Janesville, Wis.; and a Spring Hill, Tenn., plant slated to close in November. GM picked Orion and later reopened Spring Hill."

So, as can be clearly seen:

1) Obama made a promise to retool the Janesville plant and keep it open.

2) The Obama administration had the opportunity to fulfill this promise.

3) The Janesville plant was closed.

Further the AP mis-characterized what Ryan said by ignoring the line directly previous to their selected quote.

What Ryan said in his speech with the AP selected quote in bold:

"My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.

"A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That’s what he said in 2008.

"Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

That's right, Ryan said that in 2008 the Janesville plant was about to close and many people liked what candidate Obama said about keeping the plant open for another hundred years. And the plant was eventually closed within the year. Ryan was dead-on right. The facts contained in his statement are easily researched, yet the AP characterizes this as Ryan/GOP lie not long after people on the Left, such as Fineman, demand that Ryan be called out as a liar. This is only one example of this nonsense. There are many, many more.

We're now seeing the basest form of partisan journalism (selective quotes and mis-characterization) disguised as fact-checking journalism. Let's remember that the problem, of course, does not reside solely within the AP.

To steal a line, the lying liars continue to lie...

MSNBC Skips Over Minority Speeches at the RNC

Mia Love

 

When identity politics is all they have left, the Left will edit out those people who don't fit the narrative. Oh, and attack them with racist names...

From Jeff Poor at The Daily Caller:

"One of the left’s favorite attacks on the Republican Party is that it is the party of old white people, devoid of diversity and probably racist.

"If you were watching MSNBC’s coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa on Tuesday night, you might believe those assertions, since missing from the coverage was nearly every ethnic minority that spoke during Tuesday’s festivities.

"In lieu of airing speeches from former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, a black American; Mia Love, a black candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Utah; and Texas senatorial hopeful Ted Cruz, a Latino American, MSNBC opted to show commentary anchored by Rachel Maddow from Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes and Steve Schmidt."

Well, if they hadn't cut away then the MSNBC anchors would have just started calling Davis, Love and Cruz Oreos and Coconuts. At least they spared us that...

UPDATE:

And somebody keeps trying to deface Mia Love's wikipedia page. Someone attempted to add that Love is "a dirty, worthless whore who sold out her soul in the name of big business …." Cute, huh?

I don't know... but my first impression is that the perpetrator might be someone on the Left. Call it a hunch.

(h/t Instapundit)

Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has screen captures here.

UPDATE 2:

Oops. Looks like I gave the Left too much credit. Instead of calling Mia Love an Oreo in an attempt to deface her wikipedia entry, a person went for the "sell-out" and "House Nigger" labels. Keeping it hate-filled and classy...

It read:

"So in other words, she is a total sell-out to the Right Wing Hate Machine and the greedy bigots who control the GOP and love to see people like Mia Love be exploited like the House Nigger she truly is." Nice grammar, huh?

This is typical of the Left and absolutely the result of identity politics. The Leftist Democrats truly and fervently believe that they own racial minority's votes and racial minority's political views. Anyone not holding the imposed party line is immediately attacked as a sell-out, not really black/Hispanic/gay etc. The pattern is indisputable.

But hey, the Tea Party and GOP are the real racists because... um... because they disagree with Obama? Yeah... That's the ticket.

(h/t Twitchy)

UPDATE 3: Had to add this timely Branco cartoon from Legal Insurrection

London's King's College and Duke Study: Pot Smoking Permanently Lowers IQ

This should should come as no surprise to anyone who has been around users for any length of time...

From Stephen Adams at the Telegraph:

"Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

"They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.
 

"Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King’s College London and Duke University in the US."

[...]

"She [Professor Terrie Moffitt, of KCL’s Institute of Psychiatry, who contributed to the study] said: 'Adolescent-onset cannabis users, but not adult-onset cannabis users, showed marked IQ decline from childhood to adulthood.

"'For example, individuals who started using cannabis in adolescence and used it for years thereafter showed an average eight-point IQ decline.

"'Quitting or reducing cannabis use did not appear to fully restore intellectual functioning among adolescent-onset former persistent cannabis users,' she said.

"Although eight points did not sound much, it was not trivial, she warned.

"It meant that an average person dropped far down the intelligence rankings, so that instead of 50 per cent of the population being more intelligent than them, 71 per cent were."

And what's the drug of choice for professors on college campuses?

Department of Labor's Jobs Report Dismal; Unemployment Holds at 8.2%

Here is the Department of Labor's Release.

As James Pethokoukis writes "This was not the employment report either the American worker or the Obama campaign wanted to see right now. The Labor Department said the U.S. economy created just 80,000 jobs in June, less than the 90,000 economists had been forecasting. And private-sector job growth was just 84,000, down sharply from 105,000 in May. Not doing fine.

"The unemployment rate stayed at a lofty 8.2%.

[...]

"This continues to be the longest streak — 41 months — of unemployment of 8% or higher since the Great Depression. And recall that back in 2009, Team Obama predicted that if Congress passed its $800 billion stimulus plan, the unemployment rate would be around 5.6% today."

But let us not forget how the shrinking American workforce is affecting the unemployment rate.

"If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%. Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages, the unemployment rate would be 10.5%"

Ouch. So, can we call the $800 billion "stimulus" a failure (see above graph-- click to enlarge)?

And the White House's response at their website? "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available."

Huh. Seems like I've heard that before. Oh, that's right... I did.

The White House's response in May 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available."

And in April 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available."

And in March 2012: "Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available."

In fact, this same excuse is used thirty times going back to November 2009 (h/t Pundit and Pundette). Unbelievable. I wish someone would ask the Obama Administration just how many dismal jobs reports they want us to overlook? I'd hazard to guess that the answer would be when everything stops being Bush's fault...

Obamanomics: better living through high unemployment, expanded government bribes programs, and billions of dollars of political payoff.

House Votes to Hold Holder in Criminal Contempt of Congress

The House of Reps have voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.

255 votes for (including 17 Democrats)

67 against (2 GOP)

Not voting: 110 (108 Democrats)

Let's hope people notice this, even as it's eclipsed by the ObamaCare ruling. This is quite significant and quite important. Holder is now the first Attorney General in the history of the US to be held in contempt of Congress. Congrats!

Normally this would be headline news. Now will MSM ignore it, spin it, or cry racist? You make the call.

Obamacare Survives. Mandate Survives as a Tax

Well, it seems that Obamacare survived the SCOTUS. The mandate endures as a tax at least as far as Congressional power is concerned-- which is quite surprising. Court opinion here. Hmm. Remember when Obama insisted that the mandate wasn't a tax? (link via Drudge).

So, the course ahead is quite clear. For Obamacare to come tumbling down, we need to go out and vote out the people who passed this (Obama included, of course), and then insist that our represenatatives dismantle this budget-breaking travesty.

It's all come down to us the voters... again. And I suppose that's the way it should be in a republic.

Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has a great pep talk. Check it out. It cheered me up.

UPDATE: From Patrick Gaspard, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Commitee: "it's constitutional. Bitches." via twitter. All these guys have got to be voted out. Their contempt for the American people is evident. Notice how only "Bitches" is capitalized. Nice.

UPDATE 2: Screencap of Gaspard's tweet is here, via Ace of Spades.

UPDATE 3: Sarah Palin's reaction includes this tweet: "Obama lied to the American people. Again. He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies."

But you know, Palin isn't really that smart. A really bright person would've cussed some over twitter.

UPDATE 4: And the Left is keeping it classy on twitter with attacks against Palin's kids-- which involve a lot of cussing. Classy and bright...

UPDATE 5: The Left doesn't forget Clarence Thomas either. He gets attacked in tweets accusing him of being a "slave," "house nigga," not really black, etc. Standard racial slurs directed a conservative minority, really. Ah, the tolerant Left...

Another Personal Update

I must apologize for being away for so long. And thank you for your patience and for the many kind messages that I've received.

After a drawn out and painful struggle, my father recently passed away. I'd been very distracted and sort-of dead to the world during much of his illness and was unable/unwilling to post. Now, I really just don't have the heart to wade back into the blogging world, nor do I currently have the patience required for the job. I'm also dreadfully behind in my writing projects, and need to focus much more time and effort there to be able to get myself back to form.

I don't think I'm calling it quits on this blog yet-- though I have considered it-- but I am going to wait for a time (a month or maybe a little longer [yes, I know I've said this before]) before I get back here. It is possible that some dramatic world or national event could compel me to come back sooner.

Recent land grabs by Chavez in Venezuela have grabbed my attention, but Tom Blumer at his BizzyBlog did a great job of covering the AP's (mis)handling of the story, so there's little point in me retreading it.

And a portion of me does want to write about the Occupy Salem movement-- a collection of twenty or so tents (there seriously may be more city provided port-a-potties than tents on the grounds) occupied by handful of people whose grievances seem mysterious at best-- but I can't muster up more than this passing mention right now.

Despite this, the odds are very good that I won't start posting here until December.

Again, thank you for your kind messages and words. And I hope to be posting back here again relatively soon.

Yukio Ngaby

Personal Update

I must apologize for not updating this blog for some time now.

I try not to get too personal on this blog, but my father was taken to the hospital early in June and was listed as being in grave condition. He was in ICU for over three weeks and not expected to live. Thankfully, he is improving although he is still in the hospital (no longer the ICU) and a full recovery is impossible. On the up side he is mentally fully there, and the permanent physical problems that he will face are both manageable and controllable-- if his health continues to improve.

During this time, I really just don't have the heart nor patience to write about politics. I probably will come back to this blog, but I can't really give a time. Maybe in another two or three weeks or so I'll be back. But I don't know...

On the bright side, I've been able to get a good deal of writing done on my newest novel. And it should be shopped around to the publishing houses in a few more months or so.

Anyway, thanks for still visiting. And I'll be posting again relatively soon.

Yukio Ngaby

Hezbollah Takes Control of Lebanese Government

From the AP article "'Terrorist' group takes over Lebanon's government" (yes, the word "terrorist" was in quotes in the headline) via CBS News.com:

"Hezbollah and its allies rose to a position of unprecedented dominance in Lebanon's government Monday, giving its patrons Syria and Iran greater sway in the Middle East.

"Lebanon Prime Minister Najib Mikati announced a new Cabinet dominated by the militant group and its allies after the country has operated for five months without a functioning government. The move caps Hezbollah's steady rise over decades from resistance group against Israel to Lebanon's most powerful military and political force.

"Opponents of Hezbollah - which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization - say having it in control of Lebanon's government could lead to international isolation. The group's most ardent supporters are Iran and Syria, which dominated Lebanon for 29 years.

"The new government opens the door for renewed Syrian influence in Lebanon at a time the Syrian leadership is struggling at home. It's a remarkable turnaround from 2005, when fallout from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri led to massive anti-Syrian protests in Lebanon. The protests, dubbed the 'Cedar Revolution,' drove tens of thousands of Syrian troops out of Lebanon and ended decades of Syrian domination over its smaller neighbor.

"The ascendancy of Hezbollah is a setback for the United States, which has provided Lebanon with $720 million in military aid since 2006 and has tried in vain to move the country firmly into a Western sphere and end Iranian and Syrian influence. It also underscores Iran's growing influence in the region at a time when Washington's is falling.

"U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for an immediate cutoff of U.S. funds to the new government 'as long as any violent extremist group designated by the U.S. as foreign terrorist organizations participates in it.'

"'For years, members of Congress warned that it was unwise to fund a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah participated. It was clear that Hezbollah's influence was growing, and that the executive branch had no long-term strategy to deal with that reality, and no contingency plan to stop U.S. aid from falling into the wrong hands,' the Florida Republican said in a statement."

But how much do you want to bet that the US doesn't cutoff foreign aid to Lebanon? After all, we wouldn't want to provoke Hezbollah to further violence in the Middle East-- having such a sterling record in the past and all...

"The Islamic militant group's power has been steadily growing over the years and its newfound clout could add volatility to a region already rocked by anti-government uprisings in a half-dozen countries.

"A Hezbollah-led government would obviously raise tensions with Israel, which fought a devastating 34-day war against the Shiite militants in 2006 that left 1,200 Lebanese and 160 Israelis dead. Lebanon, torn apart by decades of civil war and deep sectarian divides, has had several major military conflicts with neighboring Israel.

"Hezbollah forced the collapse of Lebanon's previous, pro-Western government in January over fears it would be indicted by a U.N.-backed tribunal investigating the killing of Hariri, a billionaire businessman and political leader who had been trying to limit Syria's domination of Lebanon in the months before his death.

"Syria denied any involvement in his killing and called the tribunal a conspiracy by the U.S. and Israel.

"Hariri's son, Saad, who was prime minister in January, refused to denounce the tribunal or cut off Lebanon's 49 percent share of the funding for it.

"Hezbollah and its allies then walked out of the government, forcing its collapse, and secured enough support in parliament to name Mikati as the new prime minister. But Mikati has struggled to form a Cabinet, insisting he won't do the bidding of any one side.

[...]

"The makeup of the new government is seen as almost entirely pro-Syrian. President Bashar Assad of Syria, facing a growing uprising against his rule at home, called twice to congratulate Lebanese leaders on the new government's formation.

"Lebanon's politics are always fractious, in part because of the sectarian makeup of the country's government. According to Lebanon's power-sharing system, the president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the parliament speaker a Shiite Muslim.

"Each faith makes up about a third of Lebanon's population of 4 million."

This is not a surprise at all. Frankly, I am surprised that Hezbollah's "remarkable" takeover took this long following Hezbollah's assassination of Rafik Hariri (he was the former Prime Minister killed by about 2000 lbs. of dynamite in February of 2005). Yet, the development is still troubling and will likely lead to another military action by Israel once Hezbollah starts instigating "border incidents" and lobbing more rockets into Israeli neighborhoods.

Oops: British Study Reveals Electric Cars Produce Higher Emissions Over their Lifetimes than Gas Equivalents

From the The Australian article (h/t Dave Powers at MichelleMalkin.com):

"Electric cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.

"An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

"The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.

[...]

"The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

"Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed."

Hmm. So let's see... electric cars are really expensive to produce-- even hybrids have a tough time turning profits-- have a really short range, and ultimately produce more CO2 than gas-powered cars. Ah, the short-sided need to do something. Perfect.

Speaking of battery disposal, what doesn't seem to be taken into account is the battery acid. Isn't battery acid like one of the most destructive things to put into the ground? But hey put hundreds of millions of car batteries out there. We'll just shoot the used up batteries into the sun or something.

Irish Government Plans to Raid Private Pensions for Govt. Spending

Not an uncommon tactic in South and Central America... And it's something to watch for here in the US.

From the Business Insider article by Joe Weisenthal and Gregory White:

"The Irish government plans to institute a tax on private pensions to drive jobs growth, according to its jobs program strategy, delivered today.

"Without the ability sell debt due to soaring interest rates, and with severe spending rules in place due to its EU-IMF bailout, Ireland has few ways of spending to stimulate the economy. Today's jobs program includes specific tax increases, including the tax on pensions, aimed at keeping government jobs spending from adding to the national debt.

"The tax on private pensions will be 0.6%, and last for four years, according to the report."

These temporary taxes have a way of not being so temporary as government spending increases-- which is what usually happens when money is raided-- er, taxed-- from private accounts.

"Ireland's ability to levy further taxes on other parts of the economy is restricted because its economic growth has been inhibited in the wake of a financial crisis that crippled its banking sector and decimated its public finances.

"Unwilling to budge on the country's low corporate tax rate, Enda Kenny's Irish government has chosen to target pensioners for funds to grow the economy. Whether it turns out to be an example to other countries seeking alternative ways to raise revenues with aging populations is yet unknown."

Ah, the wonders of overspending government...

Still Kicking and Still Writing

Just dropping in to say that I'm still alive and still writing. The book is going slower than I expected for a variety of reasons, but I'm still plugging away at it.

I'll try to post more in May than I did in April, but life is being a little frantic and disorienting for me right now, so it may not happen. Anyway, I'll be back posting regularly eventually (maybe June). And of course, check out the blogs on the Blog List.

Thanks,
Yukio Ngaby

Obama's Toxic Speech

Obama's speech was a farce of course. In the true manner of a "community organizer," Obama rallied a disbelieving America toward class warfare. None of this should be a surprise coming from a man who was a good friend to Bill Ayers, attended Reverend Wright's church for so many years, and is credited with writing the book Dreams of my Father. When the going gets tough, the community organizers point the fingers and lay out the blame.

Does anybody even remember the "Great Uniter" rhetoric, the "light-bringer" promises?

From The Wall Street Journal:

"The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

"Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. 'Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,' he said, supposedly pitting 'children with autism or Down's syndrome' against 'every millionaire and billionaire in our society.' The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

"Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which 'starts,' he said, 'by being honest about what's causing our deficit.' The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards."

Yup. When the chips are down for a Leftist, then it's time to try to play class against class, driving people apart for political gain. Classic. Absolutely classic.

Jacobson at Legal Insurrection had this to say:

"Barack Obama promised us hand-to-hand combat, and his speech yesterday was the start.

"The nation is facing a debt crisis of historic proportions, but nothing will be done because Obama already has launched his presidential campaign. A compromise must included serious changes to unsustainable entitlements which are swamping the Treasury. Yet Obama took any significant changes off the table yesterday, by channeling Alan Grayson's charge that Republicans want people to die quickly.

[...]

"The truth is that Obama doesn't care about the deficit. Obama proposed a budget not long ago which would have increased spending and the deficit. It was only after the recent showdown over last year's budget that Obama decided that politically he needed to appear to be attentive.

"Yesterday's speech was a calculated move by someone who doesn't care about the deficit to pretend to care so that he could use the issue in political hand-to-hand combat.

"If you don't think 2012 is the make-or-break political year for this country, then you haven't been paying attention."

Indeed. Can we imagine the results of four more years of this kind of divisiveness?

I think that Pat Austin at And So it Goes in Shreveport had the best summation of Obama's speech:

"The bottom line of Obama's plan is that we're going to forge ahead with green energy even though it doesn't exist. We're going to buy oil from foreign sources even though we have plenty of resources here and gas is climbing to $5 a gallon. We're going to cut defense while we're engaged in three wars, raise taxes on those who provide jobs and growth, and implement a health care albatross that will saddle the country with inferior care, raise the deficit and expand entitlements, further deepening our economic woes."

It seems that Obama is absolutely determined to impose upon us a centrally controlled economic system. Is this a surprise to anyone based on Obama's background, his rhetoric and speeches, his past associates, his books?

And of course this centralized system that has never worked-- no matter how draconian the implementation. Centralizing a large economy has always resulted in massive inefficiencies, terrible shortages of goods and services, an expansion of poverty, an increased gap between rich and poor, and massive corruption. How many times do these systems have to fail before people stop trying?

From Paul Ryan's response as published in The Washington Post:

"Two months ago, President Obama submitted a budget for fiscal 2012 that did not deal with the major sources of government spending while calling for much higher taxes on American businesses and families. This budget was widely panned as lacking seriousness.

"Now comes a deficit speech that doesn’t even rise to the level of a plan. Missing was a credible way to curb out-of-control spending. Instead, the president called for greater reliance on government price controls, which would strictly limit the health-care options of current seniors while failing to control costs. The president would couple this approach with $1 trillion in tax increases, which would destroy jobs and hurt the economy.

"We cannot accept an approach that starts from the premise that ever-higher levels of spending and taxes represent America’s new normal. We have an obligation to fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for current retirees and future generations. We have a historic commitment to limited government and free enterprise. And we have a duty to leave the next generation with a more prosperous nation than the one we inherited.

"The House Republican budget keeps America’s promises to seniors and those near retirement by making no changes to their current arrangements. It keeps America’s promises of health and retirement security for future generations by saving and strengthening our most important programs. And it keeps a promise that is implicit in our form of government: that a government instituted to secure our rights must be a limited government.

[...]

"The president’s proposals are aimed more at empowering government than strengthening the free market. He continues to prove he’s not up to the challenging work of reforming government to meet 21st-century needs. If he gets his way, the nation will endure huge tax hikes, seniors’ access to health care will be reduced — and we will experience an epic collapse of our health and retirement programs that would devastate our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

"House Republicans are fighting to prevent this. Our budget offers a compassionate and optimistic contrast to a future of health-care rationing and unbearably high taxes. We lift the crushing burden of debt, repair the safety net, make America’s tax system fair and competitive, and ensure that our health and retirement programs have a strong and lasting future. These issues are too important to leave to the politics of the past. If President Obama won’t lead, we will."

The stakes are very high now. Fiscal sanity must be implemented. Failure to do so will be disastrous.

CNN Considering Hiring Chris Rock

As CNN continues to circle the drain, it's come to this. From The N.Y. Post:

"CNN brass are scrambling to find a new host for their troubled 7 p.m. timeslot, and trying to win back the African-American and Hispanic viewers sources say they've lost since the 2008 presidential campaign.

"Hoping to accomplish both things at once, insiders said the network is interested in wooing African-American entertainers for the slot, currently held by 'John King USA,' and has mentioned comedian Chris Rock and former 'Talk Soup' host Aisha Tyler as possibilities."

Well that D.L. Hughley show worked out so well for CNN...

Pelosi: "To My Republican Friends: Take Back Your Party. So That it Doesn’t Matter So Much Who Wins the Election"

Ah yes, if only we all thought the way Nancy Pelosi and the Left does, then there would be no problems in our world. I suppose those pesky other points of view and beliefs just get in the way of running our ungovernable country.

From Mediaite is this little but of the former Speaker's wisdom (video at the link):

"Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gave a speech at Tufts University in Massachusetts where she shared some 'friendly' advice with the opposing side in Washington. Clearly frustrated with the lengthy and acrimonious budget fight, Pelosi said 'elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do' and warned that it would be problematic for the country if both parties do not have shared values.

"Pelosi challenged Republicans:

"'To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors.'

"Might the old saying 'elections have consequences' be replaced by Pelosi’s new version of 'it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election?'"

She then goes on to say that "Elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do." Does anyone have a problem with that last line? Anyone?

Of course this is coming from a prominent member of the same political party that declared the Democrats had been given a mandate from the people following the '08 elections. And this is coming from the same party whose presidential candidate declared that his own election marked the moment when healing would start and the ocean levels would begin to recede. Hmm.

I am also curious as to what exactly were the the shared values that caused Pelosi to push ObamaCare through with a parliamentary trick past massive protests. Some mysterious value not shared by the majority of the American people it would seem. It's little wonder that Pelosi should believe that elections shouldn't matter so much in America.